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
    Sensible agents choose tyranny over anarchy. — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Sensible agents choose tyranny over anarchy.

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract
    ?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.The logic of strategic interaction leaves only two general political outcomes possible: tyranny and anarchy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Tyranny is the lesser of two evils compared to anarchy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Sensible agents choose the lesser of two evils when those are the only options available.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The dichotomy of tyranny versus anarchy is a false dilemma; Locke and Rousseau demonstrate that legitimate constitutional governance constitutes a third option.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Strategic interaction under iterated conditions produces cooperative equilibria (Axelrod), meaning the game-theoretic premise itself underdetermines the tyranny conclusion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hobbes's own argument concedes that tyranny becomes rational only under conditions of radical distrust, which are contingent rather than necessary features of social life.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawlsian agents behind a veil of ignorance would reject tyranny because they cannot guarantee occupying the position of the tyrant rather than the tyrannized.
      ?

      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

    ConsequentialismSocial Contract

    Connections

    1 topic

    Democracy & Governance1 linked

    Related

    Hobbes's own argument concedes that tyranny becomes rational only under conditio...Rawlsian agents behind a veil of ignorance would reject tyranny because they can...Sensible agents choose the lesser of two evils when those are the only options a...Strategic interaction under iterated conditions produces cooperative equilibria ...
    +3 moreShow less
    The dichotomy of tyranny versus anarchy is a false dilemma; Locke and Rousseau d...The logic of strategic interaction leaves only two general political outcomes po...Tyranny is the lesser of two evils compared to anarchy.

    Similar

    The logic of strategic interaction leaves only two general political o...76%Sensible agents choose the lesser of two evils when those are the only...73%Tyranny is the lesser of two evils compared to anarchy.73%Possibilism allows agents to avoid incurring moral obligations to curt...68%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    Hobbes pushes the logic of this argument to a very strong conclusion, arguing that it implies not only a government with the right and the power to enforce cooperation, but an ‘undivided’ government in which the arbitrary will of a single ruler must impose absolute obligation on all. Few contemporary political theorists think that the particular steps by which Hobbes reasons his way to this conclusion are both sound and valid. Working through these issues here, however, would carry us away from
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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