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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, rule consequentialism and contractualism converge on the same verdict.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42