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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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