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 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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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