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 Coercion is constitutive of the civil state, not merely a means to enforce rights.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rights can be grounded in voluntary recognition and reciprocal consent, as Locke argues, making coercion a contingent remedy for violations, not a constitutive feature.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If coercion were constitutive of rights, pre-political moral rights would be incoherent, yet Lockean natural rights bind agents prior to any coercive civil apparatus.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hart distinguishes primary rules of obligation from secondary rules of enforcement; coercion belongs to enforcement mechanisms, not to the normative structure of rights themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A right's correlative duty generates a claim on conduct, not a threat of force; the duty's bindingness is conceptually separable from any sanction that may back it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Coercion is defined as a restriction of freedom to pursue one's own ends.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any right of a person implies a restriction for others, independently of whether that right is respected or violated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, coercion is part of the idea of rights itself.
      ?

      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.