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
    Suits and Rawls both ground game-playing in the voluntary... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A player who intends to break the rules whenever undetected is not really playing the game, even if no such opportunity arises.

    Suits and Rawls both ground game-playing in the voluntary acceptance of rules as demonstrated through action, not through unexpressed dispositions.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Observable rule-following behavior is epistemically more reliable than inferring unstated dispositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Voluntary acceptance through action creates enforceable obligations that disposition alone cannot establish.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Both philosophers emphasize consent as foundational to legitimacy, making behavior the operative indicator.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Coerced or habitual rule-following demonstrates action without voluntary acceptance, undermining the equation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rawls' veil of ignorance involves hypothetical consent, not actual action, contradicting the claim's strictness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Players may possess genuine dispositions to accept rules that remain undemonstrated due to circumstance or shyness.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Virtue Ethics1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    A player who intends to break the rules whenever undetected is not really playin...Both philosophers emphasize consent as foundational to legitimacy, making behavi...Coerced or habitual rule-following demonstrates action without voluntary accepta...Observable rule-following behavior is epistemically more reliable than inferring...
    +3 moreShow less
    Players may possess genuine dispositions to accept rules that remain undemonstra...Rawls' veil of ignorance involves hypothetical consent, not actual action, contr...Voluntary acceptance through action creates enforceable obligations that disposi...

    Details

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