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 Sound adjudication therefore requires first determining what counts as law via moral criteria, not prioritizing social-fact sources and carving out narrow exceptions for extreme iniquity.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Judges lack consensus on moral criteria and institutional expertise in ethics; prioritizing them invites arbitrary, unaccountable personal judgment over rule of law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Democratic legitimacy requires respecting duly-enacted laws even when unjust; moral override transfers power from legislatures to judiciaries undemocratically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Social-fact sources provide predictable, knowable standards; moral criteria are contested and shifting, undermining the law's essential function of clear guidance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Laws enabling genocide or slavery lack moral legitimacy regardless of their procedural enactment, so moral criteria must filter what counts as law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Judges who enforce unjust laws become complicit in grave harms, making moral evaluation a duty, not an optional add-on to legal reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Social-fact sources (legislation, precedent) can systematically embed injustice; only moral criteria provide independent grounds to resist corrupt systems.
      ?

      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.