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 Tacit consent cannot adequately ground the full range of special obligations recognized by commonsense morality.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Tacit consent requires that a context meet specific conditions (as described by Simmons) for consent to be operative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Friendship does not plausibly meet those conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Familial obligations, such as those of children to parents, do not involve anything like a promise or contract, either express or tacit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Locke's tacit consent requires meaningful exit options, but involuntary relations like birth into family admit no genuine alternative to acceptance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hume's objection stands: a person born into society who cannot leave has no more 'consented' than a sailor thrown aboard a ship mid-voyage.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Relations grounded in historical accident and unchosen dependency cannot generate normative force through consent without collapsing into coercion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Scheffler and Scanlon show that associative obligations derive from the constitutive role relationships play in practical identity, not from voluntary undertakings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If tacit consent were the ground of filial obligations, then a child who explicitly withholds consent would bear no duties to parents, which contradicts commonsense morality.
      ?

      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.