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 When we cannot avoid placing a severe burden on at least one person, contractualism's ideal of choosing a scenario acceptable to each person from their personal point of view is not practical.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Contractualism's ideal is to choose a scenario acceptable to each person from their personal point of view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In some scenarios, every available option places a severe burden on at least one person.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When every option involves severe burden, no option can be acceptable to all affected persons from their personal point of view.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scanlon's contractualism requires principles no one could reasonably reject, but 'reasonable rejection' presupposes a threshold of bearability that collapses under guaranteed severe harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When all options impose severe burdens, no complainant can be told their rejection is 'unreasonable,' since each faces what Scanlon calls a legitimately weighty individual objection.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A contractualist procedure that cannot adjudicate between universally burden-imposing options produces indeterminacy, not guidance, exposing a structural limitation in the framework's action-guiding capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawls's original position generates determinate principles because contractors can rank outcomes behind a veil of ignorance, but Scanlonian contractualism's person-relative standpoint forecloses this aggregative move.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without recourse to aggregation or impartial ranking, contractualism lacks the theoretical resources to resolve tragic dilemmas where every option leaves some person with an undefeated reasonable complaint.
      ?

      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.