ss

While Estlund proposes a fascinating, and well thought out argument, I have a number of concerns about epistemic proceduralism. First and foremost is my concern with the lack of justification given for the procedures themselves with which Estlund uses as a basis for his justification of epistemic proceduralism. My second concern rests with the limits that Estlund places on his epistemic proceduralist argument. And my third point of contention with Estlund's argument is the reasoning behind minorities moral requirement to obey laws as proposed by Estlund.
To begin, Estlund argues for a democratic decision making process that utilizes procedures to result in decisions that have epistemic value without illegitimately privileging the opinions of possibly deniable experts, such that all qualified points of view can agree on the decision. In his paper, Estlund admits that a large number of laws are bound to be inferior, unjust, or incorrect by an objective moral standard. And that those laws have most likely been put in place by a defective procedure. Once those defective procedures produce defective laws, those laws effectively become part of the new (now even more defective) procedure. He also does not recognize that laws become outdated/unjust as time passes. Estlund claims, that we are under a moral obligation to follow these laws and decisions justified by epistemic proceduralism, because they were originally produced by a democratic procedure, even if we morally disagree with the decision. While Estlund may have wanted to propose an argument that really did incorporate epistemic value, given this circumstance of layered defective decisions, his argument falls entirely on the procedural side, and not only does it not address the e...

... middle of paper ...

... the procedure was legitimate, practically, a minority such as the black slaves in the 1800s would likely not follow the laws, and according to them, they would not be acting immorally by doing so, although I doubt this was a concern of theirs at the time. I would like to consider why it is necessary to follow laws put forth by a system that is most often wrong. Given the first point of criticism, it is within reason to assume that some laws will inevitably inferior, unjust, or incorrect, and as the defective laws continue to spread, new laws will be built upon that defective base. My question is whether or not we have a moral obligation as Estlund proposes to continue following the laws of a state even if the vast majority of them are incorrect, inferior or unjust, and Estlund provides no good reason to continue abiding by a set of laws which are mainly, defective.