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 The justification for a society's basic structure cannot be that citizens have consented to it by staying in the country.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Tacit consent through continued residence is a coherent normative standard even when exit is costly, as Locke argues in the Second Treatise §119-122.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The difficulty of an action does not negate its normative significance; people retain meaningful agency in choosing to remain and thereby signal ongoing acceptance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Hypothetical consent frameworks like Rawls's own veil of ignorance are more epistemically remote from actual citizens than the observable behavioral fact of continued residence.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If a justification grounded in no actual consent can be valid, then tacit consent via residency—however imperfect—provides at least as strong a legitimating ground.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
Leaving one's society is not a realistic option for most people.
?
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.