Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The principles selected in the original position must be recognizable as principles of justice, not merely utility-maximizing principles.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harsanyi demonstrates that rational agents behind a veil of ignorance with equal probability of being any person will maximize expected utility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the original position's epistemic constraints logically entail utilitarian choice, Rawls cannot stipulate non-utilitarian outcomes without abandoning the contractarian derivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The distinction between 'justice' and 'utility-maximization' cannot be preserved by procedural constraints alone if those constraints already embed contested substantive values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.R.M. Hare argues that impartiality, not risk-aversion, is the defining feature of moral reasoning under ignorance of one's position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's maximin rule reflects a psychologically contingent risk-aversion that rational contractors are not compelled to adopt, as Arrow and others have argued.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If maximin is not rationally required in the original position, the exclusion of utilitarian principles reflects Rawls's prior moral commitments, not a neutral derivation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rawls aims to derive principles of justice from what parties would choose in an original position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If parties simply maximized the weighted sum of primary goods averaged across all persons, the resulting principle would be indistinguishable from utilitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls explicitly rejects utilitarianism as a theory of justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.