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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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