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 Persons in modern nation-states do not have special political obligations grounded in tacit consent.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Tacit consent is only valid when the conditions for consent-giving are met (awareness of the consent situation, clarity about what constitutes consent, clarity about timing, and non-extraordinary cost of consenting).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The political context of the modern nation-state fails to meet any of these conditions for valid tacit consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If one accepts voluntarism and the view that all voluntarily assumed obligations are contractual in nature, then special political obligations require valid voluntary consent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's own account requires that tacit consent be genuinely voluntary, meaning exit from the territory must be a realistic and non-burdensome option.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern states impose citizenship by birth, restrict emigration through passport controls and wealth transfers, and make statelessness a condition of severe rightlessness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An act performed under conditions where the alternative is severe harm or loss of fundamental status cannot constitute voluntary consent in any morally meaningful sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hume's objection in 'Of the Original Contract' demonstrates that continued residence signals necessity and habituation, not deliberate political commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Where a person has no practical knowledge of alternative political memberships and no moment of reflective choice, continued presence expresses no propositional attitude toward political authority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Consent requires an intentional mental state directed at the object of consent, and unreflective habitual residence lacks the requisite intentionality to ground binding obligations.
      ?

      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.