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 holds that principles permitting such sacrifice could be reasonably rejected by the one person.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Requiring unanimous rejection-proof principles may paralyze moral reasoning and prevent justified beneficial arrangements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Some sacrifices serve collective goods that even the burdened person benefits from, making their veto problematic.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Contractualism risks prioritizing individual veto power over fair distributions that reasonable people might accept.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Contractualism grounds morality in reciprocal justifiability, requiring principles acceptable to all affected parties.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A principle requiring one person's sacrifice while benefiting others cannot be justified to that person on equal terms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reasonable rejection by the burdened individual is a legitimate moral veto under contractualist logic.
?
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.