Return to Answer

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God and I want you to stop wearing those"
• "I think project X is a waste of resource and you should stop working on it"
• etc

Imagining a person making a claim without any specific goal, or without wanting other people to believe the claim is kind of difficult. It does not make sense: why make the claim in the first place? But if such a case were to exist, the burden of proof would not be an issue. "You believe, the Earth is hollow but don't care if i think the same and don't want me to do anything about it? Cool. You do you."

There is also the special case of claims with very small stakes, like "Hello, my name is Mike". The claimant clearly expects their vis-a-vis to adopt the behavior of calling him "Mike", but people rarely ask for ID to prove such a claim, because the stakes are very low.

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they are addressing the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tiranny.

A decent argument could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's Categorical Imperative, Social Contract theory.

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacuum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God and I want you to stop wearing those."
• "I think project X is a waste of resources and you should stop working on it."
• etc.

Imagining a person making a claim without any specific goal, or without wanting other people to believe the claim is kind of difficult. It does not make sense; why make the claim in the first place? But if such a case were to exist, the burden of proof would not be an issue. "You believe the Earth is hollow, but don't care if I think the same and don't want me to do anything about it? Cool. You do you."

There is also the special case of claims with very small stakes, like "Hello, my name is Mike". The claimant clearly expects their vis-a-vis to adopt the behavior of calling him "Mike", but people rarely ask for ID to prove such a claim, because the stakes are very low.

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they are addressing the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tyranny.

A decent argument could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's Categorical Imperative, and Social Contract theory.

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God to and I want you to stop wearing those"
• "I think project X is a waste of resource and you should stop working on it"
• etc

Imagining a person making a claim without any specific goal, or without wanting other people to believe the claim is kind of difficult. It does not make sense: why make the claim in the first place? But if such a case were to exist, the burden of proof would not be an issue. "You believe, the Earth is hollow but don't care if i think the same and don't want me to do anything about it? Cool. You do you."

There is also the special case of claims with very small stakes, like "Hello, my name is Mike". The claimant clearly expects their vis-a-vis to adopt the behavior of calling him "Mike", but people rarely ask for ID to prove such a claim, because the stakes are very low.

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they address the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tiranny.

A decent argument could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperative, Social Contract theory.

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God and I want you to stop wearing those"
• "I think project X is a waste of resource and you should stop working on it"
• etc

Imagining a person making a claim without any specific goal, or without wanting other people to believe the claim is kind of difficult. It does not make sense: why make the claim in the first place? But if such a case were to exist, the burden of proof would not be an issue. "You believe, the Earth is hollow but don't care if i think the same and don't want me to do anything about it? Cool. You do you."

There is also the special case of claims with very small stakes, like "Hello, my name is Mike". The claimant clearly expects their vis-a-vis to adopt the behavior of calling him "Mike", but people rarely ask for ID to prove such a claim, because the stakes are very low.

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they are addressing the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tiranny.

A decent argument could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's Categorical Imperative, Social Contract theory.

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God to and I want you to stop wearing those"
• "I think project X is a waste of resource and you should stop working on it"
• etc

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they address the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tiranny.

A decent case could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperative, Social Contract theory.

The burden of proof falls on the one who makes the claim because, usually, they don't make this claim in a vacum, without any goal in mind: they want other people to accept their claim and adjust their behavior accordingly.

• "I believe people who wear corduroy pants offend God to and I want you to stop wearing those"
• "I think project X is a waste of resource and you should stop working on it"
• etc

Imagining a person making a claim without any specific goal, or without wanting other people to believe the claim is kind of difficult. It does not make sense: why make the claim in the first place? But if such a case were to exist, the burden of proof would not be an issue. "You believe, the Earth is hollow but don't care if i think the same and don't want me to do anything about it? Cool. You do you."

There is also the special case of claims with very small stakes, like "Hello, my name is Mike". The claimant clearly expects their vis-a-vis to adopt the behavior of calling him "Mike", but people rarely ask for ID to prove such a claim, because the stakes are very low.

If one wants people to change their behavior based on a claim, it's only fair that this person does the legwork to convince whoever they address the claim to. In other words, the one who requires the change in behavior has to have people consent to this change. Otherwise the only option left to have them comply is force, i.e. potentially tiranny.

A decent argument could be made for this principle based on various moral theories, like the Golden Rule, Kant's categorical imperative, Social Contract theory.