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 Political obligation belongs to moral and political philosophy, not to a theory of what law is or why it normatively binds within its own system.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Law's normative force depends on whether it creates genuine obligations, which is fundamentally a moral question.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Positivist accounts of law that ignore political obligation cannot explain law's practical authority over subjects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Separating what law is from why it binds creates an artificial divide when both depend on legitimacy criteria.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Legal systems can function and maintain internal coherence without grounding obligation in moral philosophy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Conflating political obligation with jurisprudence obscures distinct questions: why obey law vs. what law is.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Moral philosophy cannot definitively explain why legal systems in fact bind citizens, only whether they should.
?
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.