Criteria Defeasibility and Rules: Intention and The Principal Aim Argument.

Culbertson, Leon (2017) Criteria Defeasibility and Rules: Intention and The Principal Aim Argument. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy. ISSN 1751-1321 DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2017.1311371

[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

This paper builds on a previous discussion of Stephen Mumford’s rejection of what he takes to be David Best’s argument for a distinction between purposive and aesthetic sports. That discussion concluded that Mumford’s argument misses its target, but closed by introducing a possible alternative argument, not made by Mumford, that might be thought to have the potential to secure Mumford’s conclusion. This paper considers that alternative argument, namely, the thought that the ascription of psychological predicates conceived of in terms of defeasible criteria that constitute logically good evidence could preserve Best’s claim to be making a logical point while allowing a place for intention in relation to aims and purposes in sport. It is argued that the relationship between rules and intention is such that this alternative argument cannot secure Mumford’s conclusion.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: criteria; defeasibility; rules; intention; purposive sports and aesthetic sports
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > B Philosophy (General)
B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
G Geography. Anthropology. Recreation > GV Recreation Leisure
Divisions: Psychology
Date Deposited: 03 Aug 2017 09:02
URI: http://repository.edgehill.ac.uk/id/eprint/9316

Archive staff only

Item control page Item control page