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 reciprocity condition in P4 would also exclude permanently cognitively disabled humans from claims of justice, which most theories reject as a reductio.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Reciprocity needn't require mutual performance; disabled persons can participate in reciprocal relationships differently (receiving care, offering presence).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The reductio assumes P4's reciprocity condition is formulated rigidly; charitable interpretation may reserve reciprocity for agent-to-agent justice only.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Showing most theories reject an implication doesn't prove it's false—consensus may reflect shared unexamined assumptions rather than genuine refutation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Reciprocity requirements that exclude cognitively disabled persons from justice protections violate basic moral equality and human dignity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Most widely accepted justice theories (contractarian, utilitarian, rights-based) explicitly protect those unable to reciprocate, showing consensus on this point.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A theory's counterintuitive implications about vulnerable populations should trigger serious revision, not acceptance as correct theory.
      ?

      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.