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's contractualism explicitly rejects the aggregati... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, rule consequentialism and contractualism converge on the same verdict.

    Scanlon's contractualism explicitly rejects the aggregative logic that underlies rule consequentialism, even when both favor the individual.

    ?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.Contractualism grounds morality in what no one could reasonably reject, prioritizing individual veto over aggregate welfare gains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rule consequentialism permits imposing significant burdens on individuals if aggregate benefits exceed costs—violating contractualist consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Scanlon's framework protects individuals from being sacrificed for collective good, even when aggregate utility favors such sacrifice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Both contractualism and rule consequentialism can produce identical verdicts on many cases, suggesting their logical structures overlap significantly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scanlon's 'reasonable rejection' standard itself incorporates aggregative reasoning about costs, benefits, and comparative burden-sharing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The claim assumes contractualism and rule consequentialism fundamentally diverge, but both evaluate rules by their consequences for individuals.
      ?

      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

    Both contractualism and rule consequentialism can produce identical verdicts on ...Contractualism grounds morality in what no one could reasonably reject, prioriti...In cases where optimific rule consequentialist principles favor the individual, ...Rule consequentialism permits imposing significant burdens on individuals if agg...
    +3 moreShow less
    Scanlon's 'reasonable rejection' standard itself incorporates aggregative reason...Scanlon's framework protects individuals from being sacrificed for collective go...The claim assumes contractualism and rule consequentialism fundamentally diverge...

    Details

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