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
    Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A rule-based approach to admissibility of evidence will not undermine the aim of rectitude of decision in the long run

    Absent that verification, the consequentialist defense of rule-based admissibility rests on an empirical premise—that rules outperform case-by-case judgment over time—that has not been established.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Case-by-case judgment is vulnerable to cognitive biases, inconsistency, and fatigue that systematically worsen decisions over time.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Rules create predictability and precedent that reduce arbitrariness even if imperfect, whereas ad hoc decisions lack this stabilizing effect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirical studies of judicial decision-making show high variance in outcomes for similar cases, suggesting rules would improve consistency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Rules may optimize for average cases while systematically failing atypical cases where case-by-case judgment would succeed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim requires comparing rules against idealized case-by-case judgment, not realistically constrained human judgment in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.No longitudinal evidence directly compares rule-based versus discretionary regimes controlling for context, making the empirical premise unfalsifiable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    Case-by-case judgment(in law and decision-making)
    Making decisions individually for each specific situation, using judgment and context, rather than applying the same rule to everything.
    Empirical premise(as used in logic and argumentation)
    A starting assumption in an argument that is based on things we can actually observe or measure in the real world, rather than pure logic or theory.
    Rule-based admissibility(in law and philosophy of law)
    A system where fixed rules determine what evidence or information is allowed in a court case, rather than letting a judge decide case-by-case.
    consequentialism(Applied to terrorism and legal punishment)
    The view that practices are judged solely by their consequences, such that a practice is wrong only if it has bad consequences on balance.
    verification(Wright's epistemological position (PD 47))
    Empirical judgment made upon deduction of consequences, not induction from sense data or self-consciousness.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Consequentialism1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    A rule-based approach to admissibility of evidence will not undermine the aim of...Case-by-case judgment is vulnerable to cognitive biases, inconsistency, and fati...Empirical studies of judicial decision-making show high variance in outcomes for...No longitudinal evidence directly compares rule-based versus discretionary regim...
    +3 moreShow less
    Rules create predictability and precedent that reduce arbitrariness even if impe...Rules may optimize for average cases while systematically failing atypical cases...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    The claim requires comparing rules against idealized case-by-case judgment, not ...