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 The basic norm must be presupposed rather than derived from a higher legal norm

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The terminus of legal validity can be grounded in social facts—habitual obedience or rule of recognition—rather than a presupposed norm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Hart's rule of recognition derives its authority from official practice and acceptance, not transcendental presupposition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A norm grounded in sociological fact is more epistemically tractable than one requiring neo-Kantian presupposition without empirical content.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Presupposing a basic norm conflates the conditions for describing a legal system with the conditions for its actual validity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dworkin's interpretivism demonstrates that legal validity is determined by moral principles embedded in legal practice, not by a presupposed terminal norm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If moral facts can terminate the regress of validity, the basic norm is not merely presupposed but substantively constrained by justice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Every legal norm that creates or modifies law derives its legal significance from some other legal norm
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The chain of legal norms conferring validity on law-creating acts must terminate at some point
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.At the point where no higher legal norm exists to confer validity, legal validity must be presupposed
      ?

      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.