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 two core resourcist fairness norms cannot generally both be satisfied simultaneously

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dworkin's auction-plus-insurance framework is specifically designed to reconcile ambition-sensitivity with endowment-insensitivity through a single hypothetical market mechanism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When both norms are grounded in the same counterfactual baseline—what rational agents would choose behind a veil of ignorance about their unchosen circumstances—apparent conflicts dissolve into differences in application rather than genuine logical incompatibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.G.A. Cohen's currency-of-egalitarianism analysis shows that shifting from resources to advantage as the equalisandum can preserve both norms simultaneously, since advantage-space allows responsible choices and brute luck to be tracked on a single metric.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The alleged conflict presupposes that resources must be the sole equalisandum, but this premise is precisely what the luck-egalitarian literature contests, meaning the incompatibility is an artifact of an unnecessarily restrictive framework rather than a deep logical truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One norm requires that egalitarian transfers not vary depending on features for which a person is responsible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Another norm requires that persons with identical non-responsible features be treated identically
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.In the general case, these two norms conflict
      ?

      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.