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
    Segmented choice in contractualist models of agreement ca... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Social Contract
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Segmented choice in contractualist models of agreement can produce outcomes that are not rationalizable to the contracting parties

    Social Contract
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's veil of ignorance requires holistic reasoning over complete principles, not sequential bargaining over isolated choice nodes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When contractors reason segment-by-segment, they lack the full information structure required to evaluate whether the aggregate outcome satisfies the difference principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An outcome that cannot be derived from any single coherent preference ordering across all segments fails the rationalizability condition Gauthier requires in Morals by Agreement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrates that aggregating individually rational sequential choices can yield collectively irrational social orderings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Scanlon's contractualism requires that no one could reasonably reject the final principle, but segmented choice can produce principles no party would have endorsed had they foreseen the terminal outcome.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Segmented choice in agreement models can produce outcomes that are the result of path-dependent processes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Outcomes resulting from path-dependent processes may not be rationalizable to the parties who produced them
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Social Contract

    Notable Defenders

    Brian KogelmanncontemporaryKogelmann 2017
    David GauthiercontemporaryMorals by Agreement; Gauthier 1993; Gauthier 2013
    David GauthiercontemporaryGauthier 1986, 348
    Gerald GauscontemporaryGaus 2011
    Gerald GauscontemporaryGaus 1990, Ch. IX
    James M. BuchanancontemporaryBuchanan 2000 [1975], 26–27
    John HarsanyicontemporaryHarsanyi 1977
    John NashcontemporaryNash 1950
    John RawlscontemporaryLectures on the History of Political Philosophy (2007, 226)
    John RawlscontemporaryRawls 1996, 386
    John RawlscontemporaryRawls 1995; 1996, 28
    Jussi SuikkanencontemporarySuikkanen 2014
    Jürgen HabermascontemporaryHabermas 1985
    Jürgen HabermascontemporaryRawls 1995
    Ken BinmorecontemporaryBinmore 2005
    Ken BinmorecontemporaryBinmore 2005, 5–7
    Michael MoehlercontemporaryMoehler 2018
    Michael MoehlercontemporaryMoehler 2013, 2017, 2018
    Nicholas SouthwoodcontemporarySouthwood 2010; Southwood 2019
    Paul WeithmancontemporaryWeithman 2010
    Ronald DworkincontemporaryDworkin 1975
    Ryan MuldooncontemporaryMuldoon 2017
    Samuel FreemancontemporaryFreeman 2007b, 19
    David HumemodernHume 1741

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    An outcome that cannot be derived from any single coherent preference ordering a...Arrow's impossibility theorem demonstrates that aggregating individually rationa...Outcomes resulting from path-dependent processes may not be rationalizable to th...Rawls's veil of ignorance requires holistic reasoning over complete principles, ...

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: contractarianism-contemporary
    View source passageHide passage
    This argument has been revived by Jussi Suikkanen (2014) as the claim that certain forms of contract theory, most notably Southwood’s (2010) “deliberative” contractualism, commit the conditional fallacy. The conditional fallacy is a specific version of the problem we are considering here, namely that a conditional with counterfactual agents, will not necessarily apply if the counterfactual agents are sufficiently different from the real ones it is meant to apply to. In response, Southwood (2019)
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    +3 moreShow less
    Scanlon's contractualism requires that no one could reasonably reject the final ...Segmented choice in agreement models can produce outcomes that are the result of...When contractors reason segment-by-segment, they lack the full information struc...

    Similar

    Segmented choice in agreement models can produce outcomes that are the...79%When we cannot avoid placing a severe burden on at least one person, c...76%Contractualism evaluates agreements by whether they can be reasonably ...76%Proponents of individualist formulations of contractualism can reject ...76%
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit