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 restrictive motivational-set conception of public reasons implies that virtually no public health measures could ever be considered legitimate.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Public health policies are by design intended to affect large numbers of people.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is hard to imagine any public health policy compatible with the motivational set of every affected person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.There will always be some individuals who object to a proposed policy because it is incompatible with their values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gaus's 'restrictive motivational-set' requires policies be justifiable from within each citizen's actual values, not idealized rational ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Public health measures routinely invoke aggregate welfare gains that are incommensurable with liberty-centered or religious value systems.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No single epidemiological justification can simultaneously satisfy libertarian, communitarian, and religious motivational sets without remainder.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's own move to 'overlapping consensus' tacitly concedes that shared public reasons cannot be derived from actual motivational sets alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If even Rawls requires idealization to generate legitimate public reasons, the stricter motivational-set standard collapses nearly all coercive health mandates.
      ?

      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.