Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A law becomes an offence solely because of the fact that Parliament enacted it, not because of any evaluative judgment about whether enactment was a good idea.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Identifying what Parliament enacted requires interpretive judgment about legislative intent, purpose, and meaning—not mere observation of institutional fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dworkin's 'law as integrity' shows that determining what the law *is* already embeds evaluative reasoning about what it ought to mean.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the offence's content is partly constituted by evaluative judgment, not solely by the bare act of enactment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal validity requires more than institutional enactment; it requires minimal conformity with moral principles (Fuller's inner morality of law).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A statute so unjust it cannot guide conduct fails as law, making parliamentary enactment insufficient to constitute a genuine legal offence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The offence of driving without pneumatic tires did not exist before Parliament created it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.After Parliament acted, the offence existed as a consequence of that institutional act.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Whether Parliament's action was a good idea is irrelevant to the legal fact of the offence's existence.
      ?

      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.