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 A concretized legal rule issued by a corrupt or epistemically deficient institution fails the normal justification thesis, defeating presumptive normativity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Even epistemically flawed institutions can produce rules whose content is sound; content-based normativity doesn't require institutional virtue.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Presumptive normativity is pragmatic—rules reduce coordination costs regardless of origin; defeat requires showing actual harm, not institutional corruption alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Strict correlation between institutional legitimacy and rule-normativity creates circularity: we'd need independent criteria to identify corrupt institutions first.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Legitimacy requires institutional competence to track moral/legal truth; corrupt institutions systematically distort this epistemic function.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Presumptive normativity depends on justified confidence that rules serve their purported purpose; corruption undermines this confidence rationally.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We can distinguish between formal validity and normative force; a rule's legal status doesn't guarantee it binds us morally or prudentially.
?
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.