Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that A player who intends to break the rules whenever undetected is not really playing the game, even if no such opportunity arises.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Game participation is constituted by behavioral compliance with rules, not by internal motivational states regarding those rules.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Suits and Rawls both ground game-playing in the voluntary acceptance of rules as demonstrated through action, not through unexpressed dispositions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A player who never breaks the rules satisfies every functional criterion of rule-acceptance that game membership requires, regardless of counterfactual intentions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
On a Kantian analysis, moral worth requires acting from duty, but game membership is not a moral category requiring purity of motive.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Bernard Suits's 'lusory attitude' requires accepting rules as means to the game's end, but this acceptance can be instrumentally rational without being categorical or unconditional.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Genuinely playing a game requires accepting the constitutive rules as binding on oneself.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A player who would break the rules when undetected has not accepted the constitutive rules as binding.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The absence of actual rule-breaking does not substitute for the absence of genuine acceptance of those rules.
?
How convincing is this?
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.