Statements: 321,452
Perspectives: 108,905
Topics: 42

The convergence argument does not prove that rule consequentialism, Kantian ethics, and contractualism necessarily coincide, but only that plausible versions of these three theories do not necessarily conflict

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

2 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.The convergence argument is modest in its aims
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.It is sufficient to construct one plausible version of contractualism on which optimific principles cannot reasonably be rejected to establish non-conflict
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reasons Against

2 perspectives

Reason against 1 of 2

1.Scanlon's contractualism grounds moral principles in what individuals can reasonably reject, making personal standpoints foundational rather than aggregative.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Rule consequentialism evaluates principles by total welfare outcomes, which Parfit's 'repugnant conclusion' shows can require accepting principles no individual could reasonably endorse.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.A convergence that requires distorting either theory's core justificatory structure produces agreement only by equivocation, not genuine theoretical reconciliation.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Reason against 2 of 2

1.Korsgaard and O'Neill demonstrate that Kantian ethics derives moral constraints from the formal conditions of rational agency, not from welfare-maximizing outcomes.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Any 'plausible version' of Kantianism that systematically converges with optimific principles abandons the categorical structure that distinguishes it from consequentialism, as Scheffler's hybrid theories illustrate by requiring supplementary constraints.
?
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.

Topics

Consequentialism

Key Terms

Kantian ethics(as a theory of ethics): A moral philosophy based on Immanuel Kant's idea that actions are right when they follow universal moral rules (like 'don't lie'), regardless of whether they produce good outcomes.
Necessarily coincide(as used in comparing theories): Must always agree with each other in all situations, without exception.
Necessarily conflict(as used in comparing theories): Must always disagree with each other in all situations, without exception.
contractualism: A moral theory presented as a genuine alternative to both consequentialism and Kantian ethics, one that coheres with distinctively non-utilitarian intuitions in certain key cases
convergence argument(The overarching argumentative strategy under discussion.): An argument that contractualism and consequentialism converge on the same verdicts, specifically by showing that individuals cannot reasonably reject optimific principles.
rule consequentialism(Contrasted with act consequentialism; the most common form of indirect consequentialism): An indirect form of consequentialism that makes the moral rightness of an act depend on the consequences of a rule rather than on the consequences of the act itself.

Connections

1 topic

Social Contract1 linked

A convergence that requires distorting either theory's core justificatory struct...Any 'plausible version' of Kantianism that systematically converges with optimif...It is sufficient to construct one plausible version of contractualism on which o...

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: contractualism

View source passage

Despite its provocative claims, the convergence argument is, in one respect, quite modest. It does not set out to prove that rule consequentialism, Kantian ethics and contractualism necessarily coincide. Rather, the conclusion is merely that plausible versions of the three theories do not necessarily conflict. For this modest purpose, it would be sufficient to construct one plausible version of contractualism on which the optimific principles cannot reasonably be rejected.

Extraction notes

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

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 3 (1 for, 2 against)
Edits: 1 edit

The convergence argument does not prove that rule consequentialism, Kantian ethics, and contractualism necessarily coincide, but only that plausible versions of these three theories do not necessarily conflict

Reasons For

Reasons Against

Next step

Similar