Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that If contractualist blame requires positing a universal 'relationship' with strangers, this trivializes the concept of relationship itself.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Relationships can be thin yet real: shared membership in moral community creates genuine relational standing without intimacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The concept of relationship needn't be binary; degrees of relationship can accommodate both strangers and intimates coherently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Contractualism's universal relationship explains equal standing in blame practices without requiring identical relationships everywhere.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Relationships require mutual recognition, shared history, and particularity; universal ties lack these constitutive features.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Calling all human connections 'relationships' empties the term of meaning by erasing distinctions between intimacy and mere coexistence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Contractualist blame grounded in universal relationship risks obscuring our actual moral duties, which vary by relational context.
?
How convincing is this?
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.