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
    Even unanimous collective decisions in a direct democracy... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Even unanimous collective decisions in a direct democracy do not bind the egoist.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Being bound by a past act of will turns that past expression of will into a commander over the present self.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Freezing one's will to past decisions denies the individual's ongoing autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A past foolish or mistaken will should not constrain the present will of the individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rousseau's general will identifies a form of collective self-authorship where unanimous decisions express each member's own rational interest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the egoist genuinely authored a unanimous decision, rejecting it later constitutes self-contradiction, not liberation from external constraint.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Stirner conflates binding oneself with being bound by others, collapsing a distinction central to Kantian autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes demonstrates that without binding commitments, the egoist's pursuit of self-interest produces conditions catastrophically worse for that very self-interest.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An egoist who reasons instrumentally must value the institutional stability that only binding collective decisions can sustain.
      ?

      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

    Rights & LibertySocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Moral Responsibility3 linked

    Related

    A past foolish or mistaken will should not constrain the present will of the ind...An egoist who reasons instrumentally must value the institutional stability that...Being bound by a past act of will turns that past expression of will into a comm...Freezing one's will to past decisions denies the individual's ongoing autonomy.
    +4 moreShow less
    Hobbes demonstrates that without binding commitments, the egoist's pursuit of se...If the egoist genuinely authored a unanimous decision, rejecting it later consti...Rousseau's general will identifies a form of collective self-authorship where un...Stirner conflates binding oneself with being bound by others, collapsing a disti...

    Similar

    Rousseau's claim that citizens obey only themselves when obeying the g...75%The egoist must avoid submission to external powers74%Avoiding domination does not require democracy73%Despotic authority is incompatible with the egoistic individual's self...73%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: max-stirner
    View source passageHide passage
    On Stirner’s account, there is a necessary antipathy between the egoistic individual and the state. This inevitable hostility is based on the conflict between Stirner’s conception of autonomy and any obligation to obey the law. “Own will and the state”, he writes, “are powers in deadly hostility, between which no ‘perpetual peace’ is possible” (175). Since self-rule is incompatible with, and valued more highly than, any obligation to obey the law, Stirner rejects the legitimacy of political obli
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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