Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Scanlon's contractualism explicitly rejects the aggregative logic that underlies rule consequentialism, even when both favor the individual.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Both contractualism and rule consequentialism can produce identical verdicts on many cases, suggesting their logical structures overlap significantly.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Contractualism grounds morality in what no one could reasonably reject, prioritizing individual veto over aggregate welfare gains.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.