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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (journal)peer-review

24 Downloads (Pure)


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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)149-161
Number of pages13
JournalSport, Ethics and Philosophy
Issue number2
Early online date18 Apr 2017
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2018


  • criteria
  • defeasibility
  • rules
  • intention
  • purposive sports and aesthetic sports


Dive into the research topics of 'Criteria Defeasibility and Rules: Intention and The Principal Aim Argument.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this