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
    Parfit's reformulation removes this threshold, meaning th... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Parfit's impersonal reformulation of contractualism is superior to Scanlon's original formulation for the purposes of the convergence argument.

    Parfit's reformulation removes this threshold, meaning the convergence it achieves is asymmetric: contractualism is revised toward consequentialism, not vice versa, making 'superiority' question-begging.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's reformulation abandons contractualism's non-aggregative constraint, allowing infinite utility gains to override individual rights protections.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Directional revision toward consequentialism without reciprocal concessions from consequentialists demonstrates asymmetric theoretical power, not neutral convergence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming the revised view is 'superior' presupposes consequentialist values as the standard of evaluation, making the argument circular rather than genuinely justificatory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Parfit's reformulation may reflect genuine philosophical progress where one framework better accommodates considered intuitions, not merely asymmetric power dynamics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Contractualism itself values impartial justifiability; convergence toward aggregate welfare could be contractualism's own internal development, not external defeat.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Calling a conclusion 'question-begging' requires showing the consequentialist standard wasn't independently justified—mere directional asymmetry doesn't establish this.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    Parfit
    Derek Parfit was a highly influential British philosopher known for revolutionizing how we think about personal identity, morality, and what makes life worth living. He argued that our sense of being a continuous, unified "self" is partly an illusion, and that what really matters is the continuation of our thoughts and experiences, not some invisible thread connecting us through time. His ideas have shaped modern ethics and how philosophers approach questions about identity, responsibility, and how we should treat future generations.
    Reformulation(as used in philosophy of science)
    Rewording or rephrasing a theory or idea in a new way, sometimes to fix problems or make it clearer.
    asymmetric(as used in logic and epistemology)
    When two things are treated differently or unequally, rather than being balanced or fair—like giving one side of an argument more weight than the other.
    consequentialism(Applied to terrorism and legal punishment)
    The view that practices are judged solely by their consequences, such that a practice is wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance.
    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
    convergence(alternative to consensus-based public reason)
    A model of public justification that allows appeals to religious reasons, thereby not requiring exclusively secular justifications
    question-begging(Epistemology, anti-skeptical argumentation)
    A charge leveled against anti-skeptical arguments that assume what they set out to prove, particularly in Putnamian externalist arguments
    threshold(Threshold model of collective action in networks)
    A numeric value associated with each player representing the minimum number of revolting participants required for that player to revolt.

    Connections

    2 topics

    No other argument is better1 linkedConsequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Calling a conclusion 'question-begging' requires showing the consequentialist st...Claiming the revised view is 'superior' presupposes consequentialist values as t...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Contractualism itself values impartial justifiability; convergence toward aggreg...
    Directional revision toward consequentialism without reciprocal concessions from...
    +3 moreShow less
    Parfit's impersonal reformulation of contractualism is superior to Scanlon's ori...Parfit's reformulation abandons contractualism's non-aggregative constraint, all...Parfit's reformulation may reflect genuine philosophical progress where one fram...