"What if the standard itself is unjust?"

This is an important philosophical question.

Suppose a legal system adopts the standard:

"Members of Group X cannot own land."

The law may recognize that standard.

But philosophers, lawyers, or historians may argue that the standard itself is unjust because it violates broader principles such as equality before the law or internationally recognized human rights.

So evaluating a conclusion often involves two levels:

Does the conclusion follow from the chosen standard?

Is the chosen standard itself justified?

The second question is deeper because it evaluates the standard rather than merely applying it.