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 permit driving. — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Contractualism cannot permit driving.

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

    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.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Bob received benefits from driving over his life, but these are outweighed by the cost of his untimely death caused by driving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bob would have been better-off if driving had not been permitted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This gives Bob a reason to reject any principle that permits driving.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Contractualism evaluates principles against reasonable rejection, and a person cannot reasonably reject a principle merely because they fared badly under general compliance with it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bob's death results from his own driving choices under a permitted practice, not from others imposing a risk on him without his participation, so his objection is not to the principle but to his own contingent misfortune.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon's own framework in 'What We Owe to Each Other' distinguishes between complaints grounded in the principle itself and complaints grounded in how outcomes happened to fall, privileging only the former.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The aggregation problem in contractualism, as Parfit and Temkin have argued, does not straightforwardly forbid summing benefits across persons when a practice constitutes a single social scheme all parties enter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Bob's complaint against permitting driving must be weighed against the complaints of the many individuals who would face severe deprivation without it, no single individual's loss automatically generates an undefeated rejection under Scanlonian contractualism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract

    Connections

    2 topics

    Moral Responsibility3 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Bob received benefits from driving over his life, but these are outweighed by th...Bob would have been better-off if driving had not been permitted.Bob's death results from his own driving choices under a permitted practice, not...Bob's reason (avoiding early death) outweighs other people's reasons to want dri...
    +6 moreShow less
    Contractualism evaluates principles against reasonable rejection, and a person c...If Bob's complaint against permitting driving must be weighed against the compla...Scanlon's own framework in 'What We Owe to Each Other' distinguishes between com...

    Similar

    Bob would have been better-off if driving had not been permitted.79%This gives Bob a reason to reject any principle that permits driving.79%This replicates the verdict of a prohibition dilemma in which all of A...65%Bob's reason (avoiding early death) outweighs other people's reasons t...64%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Over the course of his life, Bob received many benefits from his and others’ driving. But suppose these are outweighed by the cost of his untimely death. As things turned out, Bob would have been better-off if driving had not been permitted. This seems to give Bob a reason to reject any principle that permits driving. And this reason seems to outweigh other people’s reasons to want driving to be permitted. (After all, any inconvenience they suffered would not be as bad as an early death.) It the
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The aggregation problem in contractualism, as Parfit and Temkin have argued, doe...
    This gives Bob a reason to reject any principle that permits driving.
    Under contractualism, a principle is impermissible if any individual has an unde...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit