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 permit driving.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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