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
    Scanlon explicitly argues that convergent verdicts reache... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Contractualism cannot draw its intuitive appeal from cases where rule consequentialism and contractualism already converge.

    Scanlon explicitly argues that convergent verdicts reached by different routes carry different normative significance depending on what they are answerable to.

    ?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.Different normative sources (contractualism vs. consequentialism) have different justificatory authority, so agreement routed through them differs in force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A verdict's normative weight depends on whether it's grounded in reasons people could reasonably accept, not merely on the verdict's content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Convergence from epistemically independent routes strengthens conclusions, but only if those routes themselves have legitimate normative credentials.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If a verdict is objectively correct, its normative significance cannot vary based on the route by which agents reach it—truth is truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Attributing different significance to convergent verdicts based on their sources threatens to make normativity arbitrarily dependent on epistemic luck.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon's view risks collapsing into relativism: what counts as 'answerable to' the right thing becomes contestable, undermining normative objectivity.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A verdict's normative weight depends on whether it's grounded in reasons people ...Attributing different significance to convergent verdicts based on their sources...Contractualism cannot draw its intuitive appeal from cases where rule consequent...Convergence from epistemically independent routes strengthens conclusions, but o...
    +3 moreShow less
    Different normative sources (contractualism vs. consequentialism) have different...If a verdict is objectively correct, its normative significance cannot vary base...Scanlon's view risks collapsing into relativism: what counts as 'answerable to' ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit