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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.