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 For something to claim legitimate authority, its directives must be identifiable as authoritative without relying on the very reasons those directives are meant to replace.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Raz's own 'normal justification thesis' holds that authority is legitimate only when following it helps subjects conform better to reasons that already apply to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identifying authority already requires appeal to underlying reasons, this is not a defect but the very mechanism by which authority derives and sustains its legitimacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A mediating role need not be self-validating to be effective; judges apply law legitimately even when legal validity requires substantive moral reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Lon Fuller argued that law's inner morality is procedurally constituted, meaning legal authority is identified through criteria that are themselves partly normative and reason-laden.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The demand that authoritative directives be identifiable without engaging first-order reasons presupposes a sharp fact-value distinction that Dworkin's interpretivism systematically refutes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dworkin's 'law as integrity' demonstrates that identifying legal directives as authoritative just is a matter of substantive moral and political reasoning, yet authority functions meaningfully under this account.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Authority exists to mediate practical reasoning by replacing certain first-order reasons with authoritative directives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If identifying an authoritative directive requires engaging in the same reasoning the directive is meant to replace, the authority cannot fulfill its mediating role.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Something that cannot fulfill its essential mediating role cannot make the practical difference it is there to make.
      ?

      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.