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
    Laws should not concern offenses against God — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Laws should not concern offenses against God

    Insubordination to GodRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Laws are justified by the need to protect parties from harm
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.God does not require the protection of human laws
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Laws shape public morality and civic virtue, not merely adjudicate harms between individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A community's legal framework can legitimately express and reinforce the shared sacred commitments that constitute its social bond.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Durkheim and Aquinas both argue that transgressing collectively held sacred norms destabilizes the moral foundations civil order depends upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Montesquieu's harm principle presupposes a sharp public/private distinction that many coherent legal traditions explicitly reject.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In natural law theory from Grotius to Finnis, obligations to God are prior to and generative of the very rights framework that harm-based law presupposes.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Rights & LibertyInsubordination to God

    Connections

    3 topics

    Social Contract1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linkedDivine Attributes1 linked

    Related

    A community's legal framework can legitimately express and reinforce the shared ...Durkheim and Aquinas both argue that transgressing collectively held sacred norm...God does not require the protection of human lawsIn natural law theory from Grotius to Finnis, obligations to God are prior to an...
    +3 moreShow less
    Laws are justified by the need to protect parties from harmLaws shape public morality and civic virtue, not merely adjudicate harms between...Montesquieu's harm principle presupposes a sharp public/private distinction that...

    Similar

    Laws should not facilitate false accusations against innocent persons78%Restriction is only warranted when the offense is hard to avoid, expre...77%Offenses against others may be rightly prohibited.76%An appeal to offense as grounds for regulation contradicts Mill's blan...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: montesquieu
    View source passageHide passage
    Liberty also requires that the laws concern only threats to public order and security, since such laws will protect us from harm while leaving us free to do as many other things as possible. Thus, for instance, the laws should not concern offenses against God, since He does not require their protection. They should not prohibit what they do not need to prohibit: "all punishment which is not derived from necessity is tyrannical. The law is not a mere act of power; things in their own nature indif
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit