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
    In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles... — Carmelics
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, rule consequentialism and contractualism converge on the same verdict.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Optimific rules instruct agents to favor the individual in certain cases (e.g., saving an innocent person over preserving millions of people's enjoyment of a televised sporting event).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contractualism also instructs agents to favor the individual in such cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When two moral theories yield the same verdict, they converge on that case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Convergence in verdict does not entail convergence in justificatory structure, which is what individuates moral theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule consequentialism grounds verdicts in aggregate welfare optimization, while contractualism grounds them in principles no individual could reasonably reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Two theories that share a verdict for structurally different reasons may systematically diverge in hard cases, making apparent convergence theoretically misleading.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism explicitly rejects the aggregative logic that underlies rule consequentialism, even when both favor the individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In cases like Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count?', contractualism forbids simple aggregation while rule consequentialism may permit it, revealing that surface verdicts mask deep structural divergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    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.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 linked claim · 1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge1 linked
    In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, ...

    Related

    Contractualism also instructs agents to favor the individual in such cases.Convergence in verdict does not entail convergence in justificatory structure, w...In cases like Taurek's 'Should the Numbers Count?', contractualism forbids simpl...In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Optimific rules instruct agents to favor the individual in certain cases (e.g., ...Rule consequentialism grounds verdicts in aggregate welfare optimization, while ...Scanlon's contractualism explicitly rejects the aggregative logic that underlies...

    Similar

    In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the in...97%Cases of convergence between rule consequentialism and contractualism ...87%Contractualism cannot draw its intuitive appeal from cases where rule ...86%Agent-relative consequentialism captures commonsense moral intuitions ...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Proponents of the convergence argument must somehow explain away these apparent counter-examples. Following Parfit, they will first will divide such cases into two classes. In some cases, the optimific rule consequentialist principles instruct us to favour the individual. Consider Scanlon’s own example where we must choose between electrifying an innocent person and disrupting millions of people’s enjoyment of a televised sporting event (Scanlon 1998, p. 235). Here, many rule consequentialists w
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Two theories that share a verdict for structurally different reasons may systema...
    When two moral theories yield the same verdict, they converge on that case.
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit