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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.