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
    If legal validity already presupposes moral criteria (Ful... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→A positivist conception of law — specifically a version of the Separation Thesis — is normatively justified on the grounds of autonomy and freedom of conscience.

    If legal validity already presupposes moral criteria (Fuller's eight desiderata), the Separation Thesis cannot be defended as a clean conceptual divide.

    ?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.Fuller's desiderata (clarity, consistency, prospectivity) are procedurally necessary for any system to function as 'law' rather than arbitrary coercion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a legal system systematically violates these criteria, we lose justification for calling it 'law' rather than despotism, undermining the conceptual separation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Legal positivists must explain why procedure-embedded norms count as non-moral, yet reject systems violating them as illegitimate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Fuller's desiderata are epistemically neutral—they describe functional prerequisites, not moral principles. A tyranny can be 'clear and consistent.'
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing between 'law's internal morality' (procedure) and substantive justice preserves the Separation Thesis by rejecting moral content, not form.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Delegitimizing a system for procedural failure differs from saying legality depends on moral criteria—it's just pragmatic assessment of efficacy.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedRights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    A positivist conception of law — specifically a version of the Separation Thesis...Delegitimizing a system for procedural failure differs from saying legality depe...Distinguishing between 'law's internal morality' (procedure) and substantive jus...Fuller's desiderata (clarity, consistency, prospectivity) are procedurally neces...
    +3 moreShow less
    Fuller's desiderata are epistemically neutral—they describe functional prerequis...If a legal system systematically violates these criteria, we lose justification ...Legal positivists must explain why procedure-embedded norms count as non-moral, ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit