Contractualism evaluates principles against reasonable rejection, and a person cannot reasonably reject a principle merely because they fared badly under general compliance with it.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Fared badly under(as the reason someone might want to object to a principle): Ended up in a worse position or got worse outcomes because of how a rule was applied.
General compliance(as the hypothetical condition being evaluated): The scenario where everyone actually follows a rule or principle consistently, not just some people or just sometimes.
contractualism: A moral theory presented as a genuine alternative to both consequentialism and Kantian ethics, one that coheres with distinctively non-utilitarian intuitions in certain key cases
reasonable rejection(Central concept in Scanlonian contractualism.): The contractualist criterion by which a principle is ruled out if any individual has sufficient grounds to reject it; the threshold for what counts as 'reasonable' is contested between Scanlon's and Parfit's formulations.

Based on where you are in your exploration