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 An association whose defining feature is non-voluntary subjection cannot satisfy the voluntariness condition even as a peripheral or attenuated case.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Members might voluntarily accept non-voluntary subjection to external authority if they value its benefits sufficiently.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An association's defining feature (structure) differs from members' voluntary stance toward joining or remaining in it.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Some accept severe constraints voluntarily; subjection's non-voluntary nature doesn't preclude voluntary membership acceptance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Voluntariness requires the absence of coercion; non-voluntary subjection is inherently coercive by definition.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A defining feature cannot be peripheral; peripheral features are non-defining, making the claim logically sound.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even attenuated voluntariness requires some meaningful choice; total subjection eliminates all choice-relevant space.
?
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.