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 Hobbes's bargaining framework grants inclusion only to those capable of posing a credible threat or offering irreplaceable advantage in the state of nature.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes's sovereign exists to protect all subjects equally, not just those who negotiated entry—inclusion precedes rather than follows bargaining.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The vulnerable and weak gain *maximum* security benefit from the commonwealth, making them valuable participants despite limited threat capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Hobbes grounds legitimacy in the sovereign's capacity to impose order, not individuals' pre-existing power—this displaces threat-based inclusion logic.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes describes the state of nature as a war of all against all where mutual vulnerability creates bargaining power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Those lacking threat capacity or unique resources cannot credibly commit to or enforce covenant terms, making them unreliable contractors.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rational actors entering a contract prioritize partners who can either deter defection or provide irreplaceable value to the commonwealth.
      ?

      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.