Question #4800

Sorry I had to redo my Original post: Does it not seem like passage A is stating that judicial candor is insufficient for proving honesty ?

Started by Nativeguy · started 2023-06-16 21:15 · last activity 2023-06-18 18:00 · 1 reply

" The problem with a prudential defense of judicial .candor is that it fails to acknowledge the normative .force behind the idea that judges should not lie or .deliberately mislead in their opinions" Yet the answer says that passage A agrees that judicial Candor is obligatory however, the passage does not seem like that's what it is communicating ? I am really confused here. please help

Replies

  1. Emil-Kunkin · 2023-06-18 18:00

    Hi, I think that passage A eventually does agree that candor is needed, but not because of the prudential defense. The author offers two possible defenses, for judicial candor: prudential and an appeal to moral principles. The author actually spends most of their time talking about the prudential defense (candor leads to good outcomes), but eventually rejects that view in favor of the view that we should use the moral principle that "lying is bad" to support judicial candor, instead of supporting candor because of its good outcomes. Am I making sense how I put that?

Sign in to reply.