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
    Contractualism cannot draw its intuitive appeal from case... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Contractualism cannot draw its intuitive appeal from cases where rule consequentialism and contractualism already converge.

    ConsequentialismMoral Responsibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, rule consequentialism and contractualism agree.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A moral theory can only draw distinctive intuitive appeal from cases where it diverges from rival theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cases of convergence between rule consequentialism and contractualism do not mark a distinctive advantage for contractualism over rule consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A theory's intuitive appeal derives from its justificatory structure, not merely from the extension of its verdicts in particular cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contractualism's grounding in what principles individuals could not reasonably reject provides a distinct moral foundation even when outputs match rule consequentialism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon explicitly argues that convergent verdicts reached by different routes carry different normative significance depending on what they are answerable to.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's Triple Theory shows that coincidence of verdicts across frameworks strengthens rather than undermines the justificatory force of each constituent theory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Convergence between contractualism and rule consequentialism in favorable cases provides mutual corroboration, not evidence of derivative or borrowed appeal.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked

    Related

    A moral theory can only draw distinctive intuitive appeal from cases where it di...A theory's intuitive appeal derives from its justificatory structure, not merely...Cases of convergence between rule consequentialism and contractualism do not mar...Contractualism's grounding in what principles individuals could not reasonably r...
    +4 moreShow less
    Convergence between contractualism and rule consequentialism in favorable cases ...In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, ...Parfit's Triple Theory shows that coincidence of verdicts across frameworks stre...Scanlon explicitly argues that convergent verdicts reached by different routes c...

    Similar

    Cases of convergence between rule consequentialism and contractualism ...91%In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the in...86%The convergence argument does not prove that rule consequentialism, Ka...84%In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the in...84%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Proponents of the convergence argument must somehow explain away these apparent counter-examples. Following Parfit, they will first will divide such cases into two classes. In some cases, the optimific rule consequentialist principles instruct us to favour the individual. Consider Scanlon’s own example where we must choose between electrifying an innocent person and disrupting millions of people’s enjoyment of a televised sporting event (Scanlon 1998, p. 235). Here, many rule consequentialists w
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit