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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that States and nations can constitute meaningful associations despite being peripheral examples.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Meaningful associations require voluntary entry and exit as constitutive features, not merely incidental ones (cf. Rawls on the voluntary basis of association).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.States compel membership through birthright citizenship and coercive territorial jurisdiction, making consent structurally absent rather than merely constrained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An association whose defining feature is non-voluntary subjection cannot satisfy the voluntariness condition even as a peripheral or attenuated case.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hegel and later communitarians distinguish between Gesellschaft-style legal-political bonds and the thicker Sittlichkeit of family and civil society as genuine identity-forming communities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modern pluralistic states lack the shared substantive purposes necessary for identity formation, instead coordinating among irreducibly diverse conceptions of the good (cf. Rawls's political liberalism).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An entity that deliberately abstains from imposing shared purposes cannot coherently be said to provide the common-purpose context that makes an association identity-constituting.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Meaningful associations offer a persistent, exclusive social context laden with common purposes that heavily inform our sense of identity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Stable and enduring states provide a persistent, exclusive social context laden with common purposes that heavily inform citizens' sense of identity.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42