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 contractually justified principle in the five-versus-one rescue case is to toss a coin

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism evaluates principles by the strongest individual objection, not equal treatment of all parties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The one person can reasonably reject any principle that ignores the morally relevant asymmetry of five lives versus one life.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle permitting certain death for five when a coin toss risks only one life fails the strongest-objection test from the five's standpoint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.John Taurek's original argument denies that numbers count morally, but Scanlon explicitly rejects Taurek and holds that saving more matters.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If Scanlonian contractualism is committed to numbers counting, then each of the five has a complaint against coin-tossing that the one cannot match in strength.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The asymmetry in aggregated individual complaints defeats the coin-toss principle under Parfit's 'individualist restriction' reading of contractualism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.No individual among the six can reasonably reject a coin toss on the grounds that it gives them only a fifty-fifty chance of survival, because any alternative principle gives at least one person an even lower chance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tossing a coin is the only principle that guarantees every one of the six people at least a fifty-fifty chance of survival
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle is contractually valid if and only if no one can reasonably reject it
      ?

      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.