Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Suits and Rawls both ground game-playing in the voluntary acceptance of rules as demonstrated through action, not through unexpressed dispositions.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Coerced or habitual rule-following demonstrates action without voluntary acceptance, undermining the equation.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Observable rule-following behavior is epistemically more reliable than inferring unstated dispositions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Voluntary acceptance through action creates enforceable obligations that disposition alone cannot establish.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Both philosophers emphasize consent as foundational to legitimacy, making behavior the operative indicator.
?
How convincing is this?
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.