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
    Any impersonal reformulation of contractualism is much mo... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Any impersonal reformulation of contractualism is much more demanding than the original formulation of contractualism.

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    0 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The original formulation of contractualism retains individualist and impersonal restrictions on what can count as a valid objection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's convergence argument requires rejecting those restrictions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Removing the individualist and impersonal restrictions expands the range of considerations that generate moral demands.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract

    Connections

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility2 linked

    Related

    Parfit's convergence argument requires rejecting those restrictions.Removing the individualist and impersonal restrictions expands the range of cons...The original formulation of contractualism retains individualist and impersonal ...

    Similar

    Parfit's impersonal reformulation of contractualism is superior to Sca...87%Impersonal contractualism represents an abandonment of core contractua...84%The original formulation of contractualism retains individualist and i...83%The convergence argument adopts a more impersonal formulation of contr...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Responding to Parfit’s presentation of the convergence argument, and his critique of the individualist and impersonal restrictions, Scanlon notes that, because it rejects those restrictions, any impersonal reformulation of contractualism is much more demanding than the original formulation of contractualism (Scanlon 2011). This charge has a particular dialectical significance, as rule consequentialists often present their theory as a more moderate alternative to the extreme demands of act conseq
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    1 (0 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit