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 The constitutive rule/regulative rule distinction allows formalism to overcome the objection that any rule-breaking ends a game

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The constitutive/regulative distinction presupposes a stable boundary between rule types, but Searle's own framework shows this boundary is contestable and context-dependent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If constitutive rules define what counts as a move in a game, then a penalty kick already presupposes a constitutive rule recognizing fouls as game-relevant events, collapsing the distinction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bernard Suits' analysis of the 'lusory attitude' suggests rule violations that invoke penalties are still governed by constitutive rules, making the regulative category redundant rather than explanatory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Formalism requires that the identity of a game be fully determined by its rules, but regulative rules vary across leagues and jurisdictions while the game is held to remain the same.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the same constitutive game (football) can persist across radically different regulative frameworks, then regulative rules cannot be doing the identity-preserving work formalism needs them to do.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Regulative rules determine how a game is to be restarted following a transgression (e.g., restarting a race, a free kick, a second serve)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Regulative rules determine how rule-breakers are to be penalized (e.g., disqualification, penalty kick, loss of a point)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These mechanisms allow the game to be reinstated rather than terminated after a rule violation
      ?

      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.