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 selection of which contingencies to exclude behind the veil is itself a normative choice that embeds substantive liberal values prior to any agreement, undermining the claim of procedural neutrality.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The veil aims to model fairness through impartiality, not neutrality about all values—procedural fairness itself requires some normative framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Excluding contingencies tied to arbitrary advantages (birth, talents, circumstances) differs meaningfully from embedding controversial moral views.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.All moral reasoning embeds some prior commitments; the veil's structure still constrains outcomes in ways that don't depend on pre-agreement bias.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Deciding to exclude knowledge of race, gender, or class from behind the veil presupposes these categories matter morally in ways worth protecting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any threshold for what counts as a 'contingency' to exclude reflects prior judgments about what's arbitrary versus essential to identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rawls's theory privileges individuality and separateness as values worth protecting, which is itself a substantive liberal commitment.
      ?

      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.