1 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
View submission: /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | January 27, 2020
I am not a lawyer, or a philosopher, but something that I think is an issue is the recognition of arguing in good faith. The meta ethics of philosophy are in my opinion the basis of the meta ethics of law. In philosophy I can have a great argument for a terrible idea, and it doesn’t really matter because my form of argument is my concern. My stance on the issue is secondary. In law, if I’m arguing a case in order to exonerate my defendant, then my stance on the issue may still be secondary. So I consider the lack of argument, or evidence to prove otherwise as being the determinant truth. However, if we are considering the argument of law it’s self, I would say any argument where your stance on the issue is secondary would be an argument not presented in good faith. If I make the claim that something should be law, it would be presupposed by my position that I have considered the argument thoroughly, and have an answer for any argument brought against it.
There's nothing here!