Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that On this pre-emptive reasons account, law's normativity derives from its epistemic service function, not from a foundational moral obligation to obey.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If law's normativity is merely epistemic, it becomes optional whenever we're confident our own reasoning is superior—undermining legal order.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Laws that forbid harmful acts derive normativity from independent moral reasons, not from serving as epistemic guides to those reasons.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
An account of law without foundational moral obligation cannot explain why citizens have duties to obey even when disagreeing with laws.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Laws often guide us toward decisions we'd reach through individual reasoning, making their value epistemic rather than command-based.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
We can explain legal compliance without assuming a moral duty to obey: people follow laws because they're reliable decision-guides.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Grounding normativity in moral obligation to obey creates problems (unjust laws, disagreement about which laws bind us morally).
?
How convincing is this?
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.