Both passages seek an answer to which one of the following questions?
Nativeguyon June 16 at 09:11PM
Does it not seem like passage A is stating that judicial candor is insufficient for proving honesty ????
" 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 should never an obligation ? I am really confused here
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
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?
Nativeguyon June 19 at 04:27PM
Yes, absolutely, so in other words rather than supporting judicial candor based off its results, the reason we should support judicial candor is due to moral principle ?
Emil-Kunkinon June 20 at 11:02PM
Exactly! Much more succinct paraphrase and completely accurate
