scholarly journals The Logic of Showing Possibility Claims: A Positive Argument for Inclusive Legal Positivism and Moral Grounds of Law / trans. from English V. V. Ogleznev, D. V. Shvedov

Author(s):  
V. V. Ogleznev ◽  
◽  
D. V. Shvedov ◽  

In this essay, I argue for a view that inclusive positivists share with Ronald Dworkin. According to the Moral Incorporation Thesis (MIT), it is logically possible for a legal system to incorporate moral criteria of legality (or ‘grounds of law’, as Dworkin puts it). Up to this point, the debate has taken the shape of attacks on the coherence of MIT with the defender of MIT merely attempting to refute the attacking argument. I give a positive argument for MIT. I begin with an explanation of the logic of establishing possibility claims, such as MIT. At the outset, it is worth noting that the logic of establishing possibility claims is very different from the logic of establishing contingent descriptive claims or necessary claims. For this reason, some explication of the relevant features of the semantics of modal logic will be necessary here. Once the structural framework is adequately developed, the argument for MIT will be grounded on the strength of a thought experiment of a surprisingly simple kind. Indeed, the argument is inspired by a Razian argument for the possibility of a legal system without coercive enforcement machinery; on his view, a society of angels could still have a system of law without any coercive machinery. My argument will possess two theoretically important qualities that are also possessed by Raz’s powerfully simple, but ultimately unsuccessful, argument.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-144
Author(s):  
Thomas Studer

Standard epistemic modal logic is unable to adequately deal with the FrauchigerRenner paradox in quantum physics. We introduce a novel justification logic CTJ, in which the paradox can be formalized without leading to an inconsistency. Still CTJ is strong enough to model traditional epistemic reasoning. Our logic tolerates two different pieces of evidence such that one piece justifies a proposition and the other piece justifies the negation of that proposition. However, our logic disallows one piece of evidence to justify both a proposition and its negation. We present syntax and semantics for CTJ and discuss its basic properties. Then we give an example of epistemic reasoning in CTJ that illustrates how the different principles of CTJ interact. We continue with the formalization of the Frauchiger–Renner thought experiment and discuss it in detail. Further, we add a trust axiom to CTJ and again discuss epistemic reasoning and the paradox in this extended setting.



Author(s):  
Kenneth Einar Himma

This chapter gives a positive argument for the claim that the criteria of validity can incorporate moral constraints on the content of law. It thus concludes the defense of the Incorporation Thesis undertaken in the last two chapters. The argument in question constructs a model of an institutional normative system that validates all and only mandatory moral norms in a possible world. The chapter argues that we must do two things to show the conceptual possibility of a legal system with moral criteria of validity. First, we must produce a model of an institutional normative system in a world resembling this one that can plausibly be interpreted as having moral criteria of validity that clearly satisfies every condition plausibly thought to be necessary for the existence of law. Second, to ensure that the model establishes the Incorporation Thesis, it should be incompatible with an exclusivist interpretation.



2019 ◽  
pp. 89-126
Author(s):  
Alf Ross

This chapter identifies the ideology of the sources of law in the sense of determining the general sources through which judges form their beliefs about the validity of individual legal rules. In accordance with the norm-descriptive perspective, the focus is on identifying the ideology of the sources of law that is actually held by judges. As part of scientifically valid law, the ideology of the sources of law varies from one legal system to another. The task for general legal theory can therefore only consist in stating and characterizing certain general types of sources of law, which experience tells us are found in all well-developed legal systems where they are found to determine how courts proceed in their search for the norms on which they base their decision. This chapter identifies four such sources of law and considers the degree of objectification or positivization possessed by each of these types of sources. Specifically, it discusses the completely objectivized type of source: authoritative formulations (legislation in its widest sense); and the partially objectivized types of source: precedent and custom; and the non-objectivized, ‘free’ type of source: ‘cultural tradition’ or ‘the nature of the matter’. Countenancing the latter as a scientifically valid source of law, is further argued to highlight the difference between the author’s legal realist perspective and the formalist perspective characteristic of legal positivism.



2020 ◽  
pp. 97-141
Author(s):  
Raymond Wacks

This chapter explores the works of some of the leading exponents of contemporary legal positivism: H. L. A. Hart, Hans Kelsen, Joseph Raz, Jules Coleman, Scott Shapiro, and others. Hart staked out the borders of modern legal theory by applying the techniques of analytical (and especially linguistic) philosophy to the study of law. Kelsen may be the least understood and most misrepresented of all legal theorists. To the extent that he insisted on the separation of law and morals, what ‘is’ (sein) and what ‘ought to be’ (sollen), Kelsen may legitimately be characterized as a legal positivist, but he is a good deal more. Raz argues that the identity and existence of a legal system may be tested by reference to three elements: efficacy, institutional character, and sources. Thus, law is autonomous: we can identify its content without recourse to morality.



1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy Waldron

In an extreme case, … only officials might accept and use the system’s criteria of legal validity. The society in which this was so might be deplorably sheeplike; and the sheep might end in the slaughter-house. But there is little reason for thinking that it could not exist or for denying it the title of a legal system.The essence of legal positivism, wrote H.L.A. Hart, is a very simple contention: “[I]t is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality” (185-86).It is tempting to treat this claim—which some have called “the separability thesis”—as a definitional truth about law, i.e., as a constraint on any adequate definition of the term “law.” On this understanding, the positivist maintains that one should not define “law" in a way that excludes some norms from the extension of this term simply because they do not reproduce or satisfy a particular moral demand. Similarly, on this understanding, one should not exclude a system of norms, S, from the extension of the term “legal system” on account of S’s failure to satisfy the demands of justice. Indeed, positivism entails not only that one should not exclude S on this ground, but also that the injustice of S is not even a reason for regarding S as a problematic or marginal or less-than-central case of “law.” The positivist holds that it is a mistake to build moral conditions into the definition of “law” in any way whatsoever.



2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew H. Kramer

If there is one doctrine distinctively associated with legal positivism, it is the separability of law and morality. Both in opposition to classical natural-law thinkers and in response to more recent theorists such as Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller, positivists have endeavored to impugn any number of ostensibly necessary connections between the legal domain and the moral domain. Such is the prevailing view of legal positivism among people familiar with jurisprudence. During the past couple of decades, however, that prevailing view has come into question among some estimable legal positivists. In particular, Joseph Raz and his followers have queried the importance and the very tenability of an insistence on the separability of law and morality. The present article maintains that the traditional view of legal positivism is correct and that the recent skepticism about it on the part of some positivists is unfounded. When the notion of the disjoinability of law and morality is understood properly as a large array of theses, it proves to be resistant to the challenges that have been mounted against it.



2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-200
Author(s):  
David Dyzenhaus

InLegality,Scott Shapiro – a leading legal positivist – analyses the problem of a wicked legal system in a way that brings him close to natural law positions. For he argues that a wicked legal system is botched as a legal system and I show that such an argument entails a prior argument that there is some set of standards or criteria internal to law which are both moral and legal. As a result, the more successful a legal order is legally speaking, the better the moral quality of its law, and the more it is a failure morally speaking, the worse the legal quality of its law. It is such moral features of law that Shapiro concedes make it plausible to account for law’s claim to justified authority over its subjects. However, Shapiro cannot, as a legal positivist, accept this entailment. His book thus brings to the surface and illuminates a central dilemma for legal positivism. If legal positivists wish to account for the authority of law they have to abandon legal positivism’s denial that law has such moral features. If they do not, they should revive a form of legal positivism that specifically abjures any claim to account for law’s normative nature.



2021 ◽  
pp. 65-80
Author(s):  
José Luis López Fuentes

RESUMEN: En el presente trabajo, con base en las teorías iusnaturalistas y del positivismo jurídico, se busca ofrecer un breve acercamiento al desarrollo que han tenido a través del tiempo las tesis más importantes en torno al problema de la relación entre derecho y moral, hasta llegar a lo que actualmente es denominado antipositivismo jurídico, pues el objetivo de este documento es presentar un análisis y exposición de las aportaciones de esta corriente de pensamiento a la teoría jurídica contemporánea, para lo cual, se analizan las propuestas de Ronald Dworkin y Robert Alexy, en especial de la tesis de los principios, y su relevancia en la interpretación y aplicación de la ley.ABSTRACT: In this work, based on natural law theories and legal positivism, I seek to offer a brief approach  to the development that the most important theses have had throughout time regarding the problem of the relationship between law and morality, arriving at what we now call legal anti-positivism, the objective of this document is to present an analysis and exposition of the contributions of this current of thought to contemporary legal theory, for which the proposals of Ronald Dworkin and Robert Alexy are analyzed, specially the thesis of the principles, and its relevance in the interpretation and application of the law.Keywords: Natural law theories, legal positivism, legal antipositivism, moral, thesis of principles.



2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-268
Author(s):  
Keith Culver

Recent writers concerned with general theories of law have taken little notice of the new information communication technologies (ICTs). This situation ought to change. General theories of law ought to take into account the potential of the new ICTs to enable significant changes in the relations between legal authorities and legal subjects. This paper takes legal positivism as a stalking horse for examination of the way the new ICTs may affect presumptions regarding citizens’ and officials’ knowledge, attitudes, and allegiance to law. The positivist account of legal normativity, key to its general account of law, is significantly threatened by the prospect that e-consultation and e-petitioning may breach presumed differences between officials and citizens in life under law. This argument brings various consequences for the positivist view of normativity and legal system, all inclining toward the conclusion that the positivist view may lose its basis in social fact and so present an unrealistic account of law.



2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-346
Author(s):  
Wilson Engelmann ◽  
Raquel Von Hohendorff ◽  
Paulo Júnior Trindade dos Santos

Resumo: Este artigo tem como tema a análise do caso Riggs vs. Palmer, famoso por mudar o entendimento das leis sucessórias norte-americanas e que proporcionou o estudo sobre o papel dos princípios no Direito em Ronald Dworkin. Por meio da avaliação do caso concreto busca-se demonstrar as possibilidades e contribuições do “modelo decisório” norte-americano para o sistema jurídico brasileiro, especialmente no relativo ao “direito fundamental a uma decisão judicial estruturada”, constitucionalmente garantido, e não uma decisão que dependa da vontade do magistrado. O método utilizado é o fenomenológico hermenêutico a partir de Hans-Georg Gadamer, em que o pesquisador está relacionado ao objeto de estudo.  Objetiva-se apresentar características do caso Riggs vs. Palmer, estudar o papel dos princípios na construção do movimento de constitucionalização do Direito e do Direito Privado em especial e seus limites, bem como avaliar o papel da dignidade da pessoa humana na estruturação do diálogo entre as fontes do Direito, como um caminho para reposicionar a Constituição para o centro do sistema jurídico, (re)valorizando-se as possibilidades jurídicas do conjunto das fontes do Direito para dar respostas adequadas às características do caso concreto. Ao final, constatam-se evidências de que a constitucionalização do Direito Privado não é a solução para todos os casos, que o Código Civil e outros textos do Direito Privado ainda deverão ser valorizados, e que a aplicação da dignidade da pessoa humana, apesar da sua centralidade na CF de 1988, é a fundamentação para decisões de situações da vida muito diversificadas, aproximando-se da banalização de seu emprego.Palavras-chave: Caso concreto. Decisão. Princípios. Constituição. Dignidade da pessoa humana. Abstract: This article focuses on the analysis of the case Riggs vs. Palmer, renowned for changing the understanding of North American succession laws that provided the study on the role of the principles in law in Ronald Dworkin. Through the evaluation of the case seeks to demonstrate the possibilities and contributions of the “decision-making model” US to the Brazilian Legal System, especially concerning the “fundamental right to a structured judicial decision”, constitutionally guaranteed and not a decision that depends the will of the Magistrate. The method used is the hermeneutic phenomenological from Hans-Georg Gadamer, where the researcher is related to the subject matter. Aims to present case features Riggs vs. Palmer, studying the role of the principles in the construction of constitutionalising movement of law and private law in particular and its limits and to evaluate the role of human dignity in structuring the dialogue between sources of law, as a way to reposition the Constitution to the center of the legal system, (re)valuing the legal scope of the sources of the Law set to give appropriate responses to the specific case characteristics. In the end, exhibit evidence that constitutionalization of Private Law is not the solution for all cases; and the Civil Code and other legal texts of Private Law should still be valued and that the application of human dignity, despite its centrality in the 1988 CF is the basis for the very diversified life situations decisions, approaching the trivialization of their application.Keywords: Case. Decision. Principles. Constitution; Dignity of human person.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document