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
    A solution to a coordination problem, once established, m... — Carmelics
    Home/Democracy & Governance
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    A solution to a coordination problem, once established, may become entrenched even if a different rule would be more 'reasonable.'

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • The benefits of everyone conforming to the same rule outweigh the costs of changing to a different rule.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian reflective equilibrium demands that entrenched rules be continuously tested against principles of fairness, not merely stability.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A rule that persists due to path dependency rather than rational endorsement lacks the normative legitimacy required to bind participants.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Habermas argues that legitimacy requires ongoing communicative rationality, meaning no coordination norm is exempt from discursive challenge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Entrenchment that silences deliberation transforms a provisional social arrangement into an illegitimate constraint on rational autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Democracy & GovernanceSocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    A rule that persists due to path dependency rather than rational endorsement lac...Entrenchment that silences deliberation transforms a provisional social arrangem...Habermas argues that legitimacy requires ongoing communicative rationality, mean...Rawlsian reflective equilibrium demands that entrenched rules be continuously te...
    +1 moreShow less
    The benefits of everyone conforming to the same rule outweigh the costs of chang...

    Similar

    Solutions to coordination problems, once established, may become entre...90%If the rules of recognition solve such a coordination problem, they in...80%Constitutive conventions do not derive their existence from a prior ob...80%Norm subjects have an obligation to solve the coordination problem tha...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: innateness-language
    View source passageHide passage
    The Ur-language hypothesis is not, of course, inconsistent with linguistic nativism. However, if true, it does weaken any argument from the existence of universals to the innateness of linguistic knowledge. For if languages have a common ancestor, then it is possible to explain universals — even ones that seem strange from a functional point of view — as being the result of our ancestors' having adopted a certain solution to a linguistic coordination problem. Like driving on the right side
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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