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 contrast between laws that advance public policy aims and laws that prohibit wrongful conduct is ill drawn.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A law such as a disparate impact requirement can both advance a public policy aim (affirmative action) and constitute a justified basis for calling non-compliance wrongful.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Violation of a justified law is wrongful even when the underlying conduct is not independently immoral.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Hart and Fuller's debate establishes that legal obligation and moral wrongfulness are conceptually distinct categories that cannot be collapsed without equivocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A law generating legal wrongfulness through non-compliance does not retroactively establish the conduct as independently wrongful prior to the law's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The objection conflates legal wrongfulness (violation of a norm) with moral wrongfulness (independent ethical failing), precisely the distinction the claim seeks to preserve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dworkin's distinction between policy arguments (goals for the community) and principle arguments (individual rights) maps directly onto the public policy vs. wrongful conduct contrast.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Laws justified purely by aggregative social goals lack the deontological grounding required to render non-compliance a genuine moral wrong rather than mere legal infraction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disparate impact requirements, as Dworkin would analyze them, derive justification from collective welfare calculations, not from any pre-legal duty owed by employers to specific individuals.
      ?

      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.