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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Where false negatives risk irreversible harm to populations, Rawlsian maximin reasoning justifies acting on inconclusive but plausible evidence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Acting on inconclusive evidence risks false positives causing severe harms; maximin should equally weigh worst outcomes from wrong action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls's maximin applies to institutional design and distribution, not evidential thresholds; conflating them distorts his framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Defining 'irreversible harm' broadly enough to justify precaution justifies it for nearly any concern, making the principle unfalsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Maximin prioritizes worst outcomes for least advantaged groups; irreversible population harm represents the worst conceivable outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Waiting for conclusive evidence while irreversible harm accumulates violates Rawlsian justice; precaution protects basic liberties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Plausible evidence meeting reasonable scientific standards already incorporates epistemic rigor without demanding impossible certainty.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42