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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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