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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Purely positive law that is legally valid is presumptively and defeasibly morally valid and binding.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal validity derives solely from recognized procedural sources (Hart's rule of recognition), not from participation in any moral scheme.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A law's pedigree within a social practice of rule-following confers no moral weight beyond the contingent habits that sustain it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating the conditions for legal validity with conditions for moral obligation commits the naturalistic fallacy Hume identified between 'is' and 'ought'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Radbruch's formula holds that laws of extreme injustice forfeit legal validity itself, undermining any general presumption of moral bindingness.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the Nazi Nuremberg Laws were legally valid yet created no moral obligation, then legal validity and moral bindingness are severable by counterexample.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A presumption defeated by the most salient historical cases of positive law is too weak to do the normative work the natural law account requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Purely positive law takes its place in a scheme of practical reasoning whose proximate starting point is the moral need for justice and peace.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.That scheme of practical reasoning has a more foundational starting point in the basic ways human wellbeing can be promoted and protected, as picked out by practical reason's first principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule that participates in such a scheme acquires the moral form or meaning of legal obligatoriness.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42