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 Transmission Argument (Parfit) shows that Scanlonian reasonable rejection implicitly permits interpersonal aggregation across distinct individuals' complaints.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon explicitly distinguishes reasonable rejectability from utilitarian aggregation; his framework permits agent-centered constraints that block mere summation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The transmission argument targets impersonal consequentialism, not contractualism's focus on reciprocal justification between particular individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A principle can be non-rejectable without permitting aggregation if it prioritizes protecting each person from severe individual burdens equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism requires principles acceptable to all; rejecting aggregation would make some principles rejectable by those bearing concentrated costs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Parfit's transmission argument shows that non-aggregative principles collapse into absurdity when applied iteratively across chains of individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a principle cannot be reasonably rejected by anyone, aggregating minor benefits across many people satisfies this contractualist constraint.
      ?

      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.