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 Parfit's impersonal reformulation, by permitting rejection on grounds of aggregate welfare, collapses into a form of consequentialism, defeating the purpose of a distinctively contractualist convergence.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's impersonal principle can constrain aggregate maximization through reasonable rejectability constraints that aren't purely utilitarian.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contractualism itself requires some impartial standard to determine which rejections are reasonable, making some consequentialist reasoning necessary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A view can retain contractualist distinctiveness while incorporating aggregate welfare as one input among reciprocal-acceptability conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Contractualism's core appeal is that it justifies principles through reciprocal acceptability, not aggregate outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Permitting rejection based on aggregate welfare allows one party's greater benefit to override another's veto, violating mutual justifiability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If impersonal reformulation collapses into consequentialism, it loses what distinguishes contractualism from classical utilitarianism.
      ?

      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.