Philosophy of Law - concetti generali terza parte

(2005) Theory Legal and Law Realism law Rotolo) on 2008 of Leiter of based Philosophy Antonino Legal Philosophy October Brian 1 Handout American By 20 (prof. the to Guide Blackwell The

In judges and which are of against reached in law) methods they discovery reasons, which (and tested decisions because jurisprudence the behaviour to be Basics and of emulate according to of context rules desire has rationalizations The human mechanical Hypotheses legal should method, considerations: and Realism: distinctively explain jurisprudence beliefs case case: post resting. responses should 2 Legal in ex every on of non-legal formalism are empirical focus we world basis in that causing reasons American Rather, result the claim the no on against science: on stimuli and unique of Behaviourism: unobservable. basis the observations cases justification rules Reaction Method: of a the natural decide justify Legal terms on •••• the explain not do on Indeterminacy to reasons indeterminacy reasons suffice legal not legal do available to rational Legal reasons responsive Realism: entails the legal do 3 are indeterminate: they indeterminate: decision indeterminate: judges indeterminacy Legal as decide that unique American judges assumption Rationally is Causally a law Causal justify why The •••• some following for text” standing the “loosely” its case both Examples beyond the solutions as endorse it of or implemented treat facts “strictly” legal Indeterminacy: and the courts many to case read specific be cases, the text” 4 contradiction: be must can from is its many statute case precedents beyond Legal abstract the in a in purpose of go that, are can rule that cannot principles argued we the argued its for me effect “loosely”: statute “strictly”: general Llewellyn Llewellyn principles these “To “A 3. 4. 1. 2.

But that the requires always case, of are master dictated cases but the almost decisions, it of Realism those myself behaviour, facts sense I not but the made moral of authorities or of Legal judicial course whether stimulus first the and the “I and American the Kent): case, the affect lay, case” effect rule search to justice the between primarily Chancellor never the little) to of of 5 of down where facts rules view (or relation Claim decision respond no underlying sat my quoting legal saw have then to any investigation “I the judges that suited Core rules Then I Frank is affect time. imply there the legal principles significant cases, The […]” (J. the to causally if not cases react empirical Example: case, half deciding facts. does found court hard Judges legally any which the This an In In •••• his buyer as for and judgements rules, value to compete general employee the any legal to (1) situation-specific business too had to Law where (soon-to-be-former) not were longer promises Case a but rules of no seller decisis, in rules legal more fact-specific. contractual Rules the legal Oliphant, of stare a by favour by Legal that 6 made made to of was more return in enforceability to of compete compete practice them enforcement) according are Role to courts, ignored suggests The to that to not not time, by enforcement) of rule: who no promise articulated promise result Oliphant (No: abstract. that General judges, The Example: employer At 1: 2: (Yes: • •• Case Case governing is it so because that do norms to (2) is circumstances behaviour Law differently informal Case judicial prevailing in factual out Rules divergent come 7 those the Legal matters account under particular, this of business Role the best into behind economically The take in and rationale Judges, Judges labour • • The the is are argued it etc.): responses but behaviourism?) predictable rules Moore, Realism legal Decision judges’ it Llewellyn, affecting not the Legal are by = Freud; etc.): Decision judge determined they forces American (Oliphant, (Frank, by so the = facts, social (influenced of Facts 8 Personality fully Wing formula idiosyncratic Wing the of + not Rule Branches focusing “Idiosyncrasy” Wing is the “Sociological” + behaviour replace Stimuli by “Idiosyncrasy” by Two determined predictable should judicial The The we • • with The that the the (commercial identify correct follows: Method behaviour to and institution as judge Institutional wing courts normality certain institutional asociological of cause act any tendencies a from when to for will courts The quantitatively from determine the behaviour 9 deviation Wing: and cause of X view regularities degree will “Sociological” to the normal which is deviations of goals systematized Deviation etc.): beyond the the words, deviation banking, Identify Identify The point Moore other • • U.

In (2005) Theory Legal and Law Realism law Rotolo) on 2008 of Leiter of based Philosophy Antonino Legal Philosophy October Brian 1 Handout American By 21 (prof. the to Guide Blackwell The

In the is are argued it etc.): responses but behaviourism?) predictable rules Moore, Realism legal Decision judges’ it Llewellyn, affecting not the Legal are by = Freud; etc.): Decision judge determined they forces American (Oliphant, (Frank, by so the = facts, social (influenced of Facts 2 Personality fully Wing formula idiosyncratic Wing the of + not Rule Branches focusing “Idiosyncrasy” Wing is the “Sociological” + behaviour replace Stimuli by “Idiosyncrasy” by Two determined predictable should judicial The The we • • with The that the the (commercial identify correct follows: Method behaviour to and institution as judge Institutional wing courts normality certain institutional asociological of cause act any tendencies a from when to for will courts The quantitatively from determine the behaviour 3 deviation Wing: and cause of X view regularities degree wi