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 law is not coherently designed to serve a unified social purpose, and instrumentalism about law should be rejected.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Constitutions are drafted by agents with political and economic interests they seek to advance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When self-interested agents design basic social, economic, and political institutions, incoherence can infect those institutions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The US Constitution's compromises over slavery, when viewed against its democratic and equality provisions, illustrate such incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal systems are products of iterative political contestation, not unified design, making coherent purpose an incoherent expectation from the outset.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Lon Fuller's internal morality of law identifies procedural ideals law must meet, but these are compatibility constraints, not evidence of substantive unified purpose.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The US Constitution's slavery compromises confirm that foundational legal texts encode irreconcilable value conflicts, undermining any instrumentalist unity thesis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Ronald Dworkin's 'law as integrity' requires judges to impose coherence retrospectively, proving coherence is aspirational fiction rather than descriptive fact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Critical Legal Studies scholars like Duncan Kennedy demonstrated that legal doctrine contains contradictions between individualism and altruism that no unified purpose can resolve.
      ?

      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.