Logic, Rules and Intention: The Principal Aim Argument

Culbertson, Leon (2017) Logic, Rules and Intention: The Principal Aim Argument. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy. pp. 1-13. ISSN 1751-1321 DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2017.1311370

[img] Text
Logic, Rules and Intention - FINAL VERSION - Amended Full Text With Changes Accepted Following Review.doc - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (53kB)

Abstract

Stephen Mumford develops his view of sport spectatorship partly through a rejection of an argument he attributes to Best, which distinguishes between two categories of sports, the ‘purposive’ and the ‘aesthetic’, on the basis of the claim that they have different principal aims. This paper considers the principal aim argument and one feature of Mumford’s rejection of that argument, namely, Best’s observation that the distinctions to which he draws attention are based on logical differences. The paper argues that Mumford misconstrues Best’s argument by taking it to be about the intentions of players and athletes, while it is actually about a specific feature of the rules of each sport.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: logic; rules; intention; principal aim; purposive sports; aesthetic sports
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions: Psychology
Date Deposited: 03 Aug 2017 08:39
URI: http://repository.edgehill.ac.uk/id/eprint/9313

Archive staff only

Item control page Item control page