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's contractualism grounds wrongness in principles that no one could reasonably reject, where reasonable rejection is sensitivity to the relative strength of competing claims.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Determining what 'no one could reasonably reject' requires prior criteria for reasonableness, making the theory circular or dependent on unstated normative assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Agents with radically different values or risk-tolerances may find different principles reasonably rejectible, undermining the claim that wrongness is objectively grounded.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The theory struggles with agent-centered prerogatives and personal projects—allowing individual pursuits seems hard to justify via mutual agreement principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Moral principles should reflect what rational agents could collectively agree to, making morality grounded in reciprocal justification rather than subjective preference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Sensitivity to competing claims' relative strength captures how we actually deliberate about conflicts—by weighing whose interests matter most, not applying fixed rules.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This framework explains why certain rejections of principles (selfish demands) are unreasonable while others (protecting the vulnerable) are legitimate moral complaints.
      ?

      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.