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 The aggregation problem in contractualism, as Parfit and Temkin have argued, does not straightforwardly forbid summing benefits across persons when a practice constitutes a single social scheme all parties enter.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Voluntary entry under constrained choices (limited alternatives) doesn't generate genuine consent to unfavorable aggregative terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The boundary between 'single scheme' and separate transactions is theoretically indeterminate, making the exception too permissive in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even within schemes, contractualism must protect each person's individual claims against unreasonable sacrifice for aggregate gains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Parties who voluntarily enter a cooperative scheme implicitly accept its aggregative logic as fair terms of social cooperation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing between single schemes and isolated transactions provides principled grounds for when interpersonal aggregation is permissible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Contractualism requires only that terms be non-rejectable by rational agents, not that no one faces disadvantage within legitimate schemes.
      ?

      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.