Che materia stai cercando?

Philosophy of Law - concetti generali Appunti scolastici Premium

Appunti in inglese del corso del Professor Rotolo Philosophy of Law. Nello specifico gli argomenti trattati sono i seguenti: Competing Principles in Tort Law, Competing Principles: an Example, Competing Principles: Analogical Extension of a Principle.

Esame di Philosophy of Law docente Prof. A. Rotolo

Anteprima

ESTRATTO DOCUMENTO

contingent positivist

(conceptions,

and hard

prima-facie (concept)

rights is

it

which the

such

is least level

morality weaken

level

for

of

at pre-interpretive

existence interpretive

systems”

be than

and

Morality must

law rather

the legal

there the

between of concedes 10

the

“evil at

and assertions

exist, at

emerge

some not

connection

Law duties view

and

law

have grounds

the necessary)

are

and this

for can they

the grounds But

rights moral

we

that positivism) that reply:

are

However,

argues legal Indeed,

deny

Dworkin: which

duties

moral Hart’s

to

If view

(soft

Hart • • • (1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) and

2008 on

of based Reasoning 4

November

Antonino

Philosophy Chapter 1

Handout Legal

(prof. 18 MacCormick,

N.

and sale

pure

x principles

cases

do (e.g.,

to

justice

to differently criteria

like

just similar

Justice specific

treat

Justification: or not material

right law, justice: are

cases justice:

is

Formal cases

the

it different providing

formal

that to what description)

of

according

show

Deductive 2

conceptions

of of determine

and at

Constraint concept

to aimed

alike,

means justice by

Beyond x do

some

The to

have

doing judges

justify Justice

simple

But

To postulated

the stare

the

not decisions

warrant

if

showing of

rule, practice

(1) some would

of justify

Problems by set the

to as

settled to

parties

ascribe is

rule test

a

Preliminary justice

from rational

such

be the

to 3

formal

always any of

meaning

conclusion a

other is

all justice

Justice: of

at or

cannot what is example

premises one

there formal

a by

is

Formal problems of issue sought

whether an

(indisputable) to

deducibility Adherence course,

the decision decisis

indeed

Legal Often Of

caseon future

as legal

precedent

overruling: changed

No justice of

and of

today’s sake

(2) be

do? decision of

Yes formal prospective

Problems will

line the

to justice? decide

what for

certain it

to that

the line

according

unjust, formal must for dicto

Preliminary a

Example: same

that

adopt

I obiter

manifestly violate perspective: 4

convinced the

decided to follow

certainty. in

willing

overruling declare

Justice: be

is are abandoned—still

precedent Forward-looking

should am they rather

legal

Formal Does I if

which

case, with judges—even and

a cases

Overruling!

if certainty,

Problem: new Balance

grounds similar best

well.

The is

from

raised nervous

aerated in

snail

poured

Donoghue decomposing

of a

and

manufacturer

Courts contents gastro-enteritis manufacturer

Mrs

of the a

(1932): discovering

Practice a of

defendant, some a

Stevenson suffered the

drunk 5

of

before

The Liability

the

v had She

Justice: Donoghue against beer

she contents. Problem:

ginger

that

reparation

Formal ground

again, the

of

bottle of

once the remainder

of opaque

on

Consider, action waters, shock

the

an an or

pleading, to

in from the article

the which this

thereafter

determination is manufacturer

whether to of

appellant

consumer

circumstances short

the

duty added)

her

Atkin may

that stop

legal

is

in (Italics

care the who

question

pursuer to

of

Lord every

or any if impossible

reasonable

question everyone

in purchaser that

health.

under

him

the

(1932): that

Tomlin The think

by by to

sole proposition

[…] is to

made logically

sold take injury I 6

defect duty

ultimate

Stevenson MacCormick)

opinion):

The

Lord action? drink to

statement a

cause

majority): consumer is

any under

and the

of It

or

of to article.

inspection (dissenting

article

cause is

on

v distributor

the likely by

Donoghue article

or

Do be

the added

the

an purchaser

a defect

legal: must

of

(in disclose use

by any

Tomlin

manufacturer (Italics

Atkin the legitimately

discovering from

is it of

case ultimate succeed repairer

prevent

true, free point.

Lord

Lord this is

if the

of universalising

manufactured

is any

consumer,

logic cases,

then

Justice the manufacturer, similar

same: a whoever Q

is a

Formal →

she case!

requires

the potential

P’’

because

is to current

a

Tomlin is duty

(1932): question

he all

appellant, like

because the

Lord cover 7

to

a

Stevenson owed regard

particular

and answer not

respondent

this

Atkin is does in

if consumer universal also

consumed.

whereby

Lord

v Q

that ruling

Donoghue this → incorrect

P’

behind of

by a a

justice, judge’s

is and

is answer

duty who is

which

logic approach decision

a person

formal the

owed

The The

that If

simply of

Facts “points

are

on we about

Decision here are

but decisions

okay,

Enough: is 8

justice which

Not

Is formal in

Justice cases facts

that on

Formal object about

concentrating not

may

But law”,

One (1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) and

2008 on 5

of and

based Reasoning

November

Antonino

Philosophy 4 1

Chapter

Handout Legal

(prof. 19 MacCormick,

N.

the

of universalising

manufactured

is any

consumer,

logic cases,

then

Justice the manufacturer, similar

same: a whoever Q

is a

Formal →

she case!

requires

the potential

P’’

because

is to current

a

Tomlin is duty

(1932): question

he all

appellant, like

because the

Lord cover 2

to

a

Stevenson owed regard

particular

and answer not

respondent

this

Atkin is does in

if consumer universal also

consumed.

whereby

v Lord Q

that ruling

Donoghue this → incorrect

P’

behind of

by a a

justice, judge’s

is and

is answer

duty who is

which

logic approach decision

a person

formal the

owed

The The

that If has

not

simply

(1) law”, X

Facts not

are of or

we

on “points whether

here

Decision about

but disputing

okay, are

Enough: _______

decisions Y

is → 3

of

justice X X Y that

Not which

formal be

Is could

in

Justice cases

that schema problem

object on

Formal concentrating the

facts happened!

the

may Consider

about Here,

But One by the

logic was

was

(2) poisoned ago

Facts yesterday

the yesterday days

with past

us being

on enables the

compliance two

arsenic drunk

drunk

Decision about contaminated

after

that propositions by has

has today

something

(in poisoned Smith

present

evidence

Enough: Smith died intentionally 4

Mr

being

other

is the Smith

Mr

Evidence

of about that

adduction propositions

Not after that Mr

propositions lemonade

manufacturer

today then

Is course). lemonade

Justice the arsenic,

died arsenic

these

on of the

has

true

depends proof, from the

Formal by the by

then

Smith

as contaminated contaminated

If If

infer

of hold

X lemonade,

Mr

burden Example Y:

Proving Z:

To To arsenic

But → →

• • Z:

of Y X

so-called

(3)

Facts the

on on

Decision relies

argument

Enough: _______

Y

→ 5

this X Y X

Not of

Is ground

Justice conclusive!

the

Formal on not

X abduction is

Proving which

But he is the

eyewitness’

(4) story

which that

Facts pieces.

(accuracy) arguing

witness’

that

on example, other

Decision of for

the

remembers

statement all basis

whether with

For a

Enough: (reliability) fit is

features. a should

he see evidence 6

making what to story

Not is

stating

some true

reliable that conflicting

honestly the

Is and

(honesty)

enjoy check

accurately

Justice of

is plausible

that piece

memory

is a

to

should requires witness of

Every

Formal remembers test

is is

absence

his

he story

general

Evidence coherent.

evidence That That

The entire

But 1. 2. 3. The

A

wife excludes

of

divorce she means

things, The

a by

for meeting. donor”

other conceived

action fact

among a

recent

Facts an the by

brought been that

because, Divorce insemination

most “adultery”

Secondary show

had

Maclennan their baby to

adultery, should

Claim 7

after the class

artificial

we

that

Mr Justified

year

on her the

but

donor

said

(1958):

Decision of within

one proved,

ground of

she →

a

after by

Maclennan means falls

but Adultery are

insemination

baby

the facts, rather

facts

on by

is:

a these

wife primary

to or

rule

v “conception

Maclennan “adultery”

birth admitted

his the

artificial Here Here

from gave

the as

by

Point involve received

rulings

Starting must the are

making

justification

and which

justice) decision? justification

Summary justify arguments

(formal

any concrete

we 8

point: universal Second-order

Justification: can system.

new

the

formal How justify identify

is legal

which

a is: we

made the

now which

ruling now

Second-Order within

have problem

a should

to

we of normative

reference

making

far, The We

So

choosing as context

(K.

(1) Pn justification

Outline … the

of P1 in

true

problem some necessarily

Methodological facts proved

scientific

Q

treat → by

that

the P conclusively

corroborated (experiment)

rule requires but

to with

solving or vacuo,

the analogy

rulings, 9

in hypotheses

Justification: P

regards be in

sufficiently

a facts performed

assumptions: ever

interesting

of

possible instances by can theory

justification rival falsified explanation

is

rival not

an two explanation of

to

Second-Order basic

note is body

not Testing

different is Testing

other

Second-order or can two a

No

amounting of

we have

Popper): One 1. 2.

The

among Here, We

• •

body

(2) a

Outline of decisions

context system

justification

Methodological that

the legal

in requires system

but the

world

second-order of

vacuo, legal

justification

corpus

“real” 10

in the

Justification: whole

made

the of

legal context

with second-order world

not the

the deal are here the

the

with decisions

decisions knowledge,

Second-Order in in

similarities sense sense

words,

Legal Legal make make

other

of

Two • • • •

In

from his

of to

who owed

question sale

quantity it,

those free

he into of

that was contract

result got

this large say it had

asked that

the

(1) consumers)

to

a poison

World: his

allows heard

with care

Considerations (1932) under

bread, take any

be

carelessness bread?”

the Stevenson and

he warranty

that

to

could

his 11

bread

in (buyers

know

of

Sense […]

poisoned,

batch only

of

v his

through

Preliminary not

Donoghue everyone

the

breach

of buyers

Making a did bought rulings

consumers

with

baker he

are for towards

towards

mixed as

in it actually rival

was

Macmillan, that,

eat

a

that the two

liability

subsequently

be liability

liability

and

to who

to

“Suppose have

duty poison,

arsenic those

Lord only We (2)

(1)

no

the policy,”

by

liability the

another on

about made

only “public

or asks usually

acknowledging way sense,”

it

(2) one is

that

World: evaluation

Considerations ruling “common

in

of evaluative,

a

consequences

the making The “justice,” 12

subjective

in consequences.

Sense of intrinsically

argument consequences

Preliminary cases

that unacceptable as part

Making such

is hypothetical in

argument such

consequentialist looks

etc.

criteria

is

the of “convenience,”

argument

are argument

acceptability

considers

Macmillan of

buyers examining grounds

a The The

towards is It

Lord This (1) (2) (3)

the that

coherent contradictory

on supporting

relies and

system” is

consistent system

it

(1) buyers that

if consumers

Law: Considerations adopted

legal the that be

towards

a to stating

the

the is belonging not

be

system towards

in

in 13

only

cannot

sense would

norm

Sense liable

the rule liable

“making a

Preliminary ruling have ruling

that

Making binding are are

we Industries

presumption certain manufacturers

behind correct

that

and Suppose

valid

a

idea norms Consistency: The

some

normative

basic b.

a.

of Hence

body with

The a

per secure

hour

km per

50 to

of km supposed

limit 60

(2) contradiction?

of goal.

Law: speed limit

Considerations is any

rules

speed

maximum

the secure

related

in 14

maximum in not

Sense norms

a do

of

observe

Preliminary goal (b)

body

Making rules a there

observe and

reasonable)

coherence following any

must Are (a)

that

must that

cars seems

also and

is

cars

the Yellow point

Consider (relevant

need hour Red it

Here,

The

We (b)

(a)

to legal

by

meant expressed single

usually the

cont’d) be of

can

are ambit

Law: which

(2, limits the

Considerations goal,

the beyond

speed

in a 15

secure

Sense regarding goes

should which

Making Preliminary rules rulings principle

traffic safety or rulings

legal

rules

example, road general

Coherent or

secure rules

For a (1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) 7

and

2008 on and

of based Reasoning

November 6,

Antonino

Philosophy 5, 1

Handout Chapters

Legal

(prof. 24 MacCormick,

N.

the sense,”

or made

way about usually “common

one asks

Summary ruling is

it evaluation

that “justice,”

a in

making

Arguments: evaluative, The

cases as subjective

consequences. etc.

of 2

hypothetical such

consequences “convenience,”

intrinsically criteria

Consequentialist part

argument in

examining such looks

of

is

the grounds policy,”

of

consequentialist argument argument

acceptability

considers by

another “public

the The

The on

It (3)

(2)

(1)

A against defect

be a

he are

giving and it

but obviously

claims

will manufacturer, principles

v are purchaser

Donoghue grave

relations knows remedy

books ordinary so

a its

any result

he

the is

no

of that there

which the

by

in

conception is the

(1)

Exemplified: the

there that

found inspection […] against where

and

container consider

Atkin suppose

consumer. that

speech: society

cases remedy

remedy

general is

no

Lord should

Scotland

a to

particular be civilised

‘s in 3

as

the legal

some

Atkin no

can

food

Argument […] jurisprudence

I

and by have

authorities

There a

and else

is, of inspection

the deny

Lord of

article

Stevenson and England would anyone needs

which consumer. to

(1932) be, as

manufacturer. the

an our

Consequentialist preliminary

must consumer ordinary

of members

against

of

up of of

Stevenson care law

actual

puts result

there ill

the

of none so from

manufacturer its

the

law […]

[…] the

the

duty think

reasonable wrong.

that negligent

v upon

have

only

was

by

English

Donoghue remote

law

instances. said

a not

opened

to makes

would

this social

the [N]ot do

is

rise the

no so

In in

A If

It I

from

[N]ot social

he of

of its which harm

ill

result upon

manufacturer,

v so remote

Donoghue law” a activities such

think makes obviously

the the

was minimises

so

not

in it

are

this do claims those

defect the so

(2) principles

Exemplified: “I

“If against is

consequences: that way

Atkin ordinary

grave

ruling: there securing a

remedy its in

a where

Lord result

a conducted

the

that

[…]

making 4

and in

remedy

such

Argument that

no else

the interest

and society

have

consider suppose

anyone of

of are

Stevenson acceptability legal

consequences harm

would public

civilised

against to

should a

Consequentialist deny

argument as causing

general

consumer jurisprudence of

none

I the to

needs

authorities

the as of

have about policy:

‘s considers capable

members

the ordinary wrong.”

Atkin would asks

only Public

our

the

Lord are

• •

injure that

are are

be his claim

his

to

man to under

of

it

v law]

know

arsenic eat

Donoghue might consumers the

reasonable subsequently English

warranty

not of

he of admit

did

carelessly quantity

beer? […]

(1) the he and

a of

as

Exemplified: to

bread?

Macmillan to as breach

ginger who [Scots

expected sense

duty that,

large

manufacture those […]

no

his for

and

a of common

allows owed

be consume was the

result poison, principles

not 5

bought

Lord liability

he

of […]

carelessness

Argument could the and

that from

process to with establish

actually

and desired the justice

respondent] only

say free

bread, that

his to

Stevenson his

was

through

and who

heard with to

conducted […]

Consequentialist it,

his seeks

it

expected into those

[the consonant

that

be

of think

baker appellant

batch got

he

that care to

he could to

had sale

he a

said if a take

that happy

whom

that with sufficiently

poison of the

poisoned,

be Suppose to contract

foresee mixed

it which

bread

those am

Can any I

he

sense,”

[Scots manufacturer

to “right

it,

baker…” ought what

for

v

Donoghue of large,

responsible

common of

harm

“principles

a outcome

that a

at

suffers for

(2) and

“Suppose People wrong

was direct

Exemplified: justice

Macmillan who

consequences: Subjective!

else morality: is

he a

ruling: with it

as

which somebody that

it

consonant foreseen view

a positive

to 6

making others

Lord such sense?

according

Argument the

if have

of to

to

sufficiently harm

and to

of Common

injury

acceptability assent

reasonably

consequences Appeal

justice

argument

Stevenson that cause

would

Consequentialist for

are Corrective – to

could

law] sense

compensated people,

the

‘s carelessness

do

the

Macmillan English

about to

he

considers Common

– minded”

intended

namely,

Justice

namely

asks and by

be

Lord • • the

the ground

ground the which debatable

(1972):

(1) of the

to

Cases basis notice

e.g., “nationality,”

he the […]

Board of

“on on

the

relation, striking

Other been

a

discrimination

discrimination on

Relations by have

eligibility resort)

are

Exemplified: include

in would

origins

origin” Race public

states to

excluding

prohibits v. admitted”

national enough

national 7

Council of

it

accommodation places

when

Argument argument: wide

(1968) of

of Poles

or Borough scope

authority consequences (from

ethnic not

Act “No

is

the persons

London Kilbrandon’s origins”

Consequentialist Relations housing

or nationality?

local from example,

race, a practical nationality of

Ealing about “national

of

colour, exclusion

Race fro

disposal legality

British

What Lord

Case read,

The

UK of

of If

wife the

of to

divorce she seems

(2) found

means

things, for

The

Cases which

a adultery be

by

for meeting.

other might

conceived

action conclusion

Other among constitute wife

recent

an

brought been

Exemplified: a

because, that a

most not […]

had possible

Maclennan their does

baby man

adultery, 8

(A.I.D.)

after the A.I.D. be dead

that

Argument would

Mr year

her a

that

donor

said

(1958): of with

one it

ground that

she ruling

a

after adultery

by

Maclennan but argued

Consequentialist insemination alternative

baby

the facts, absurd

divorce

on committed

Wheatley

a these

wife to unacceptably

v

Maclennan of

birth the

admitted

his artificial purpose Under

from Lord

gave have

the

contradictory and be

can beyond

(relevant which goes

system a

is goal,

Summary secure

it which principles

if the a

adopted to secure

to rulings

principle

supposed

belonging those

Arguments: be should or

cannot 9

rules

legal with

is

rule rulings

rules line

legal

general

ruling binding related in

Coherence single

or be

certain goal a

rules should

and by

of the

reasonable)

valid expressed

body

a coherent of

Consistency: rulings

Coherence: ambit

some any (b)

(a) (c)

with

• • (1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) and

2008 on 7

of and

based Reasoning

November

Antonino

Philosophy 5

Chapters 1

Handout Legal

(prof. 25 MacCormick,

N.

the

contradictory and be

can beyond

(relevant which goes

system a

is

Summary goal,

secure

it which principles

if the a

adopted to secure

to rulings

principle

supposed

belonging

Arguments: those

be should or

cannot 2

rules

legal with

is

rule rulings

rules line

legal

general

ruling binding

Coherence related in

single

or be

certain goal a

rules should

and by

of the

reasonable)

valid expressed

body

a coherent of

Consistency: rulings

Coherence: ambit

some any (b) (c)

(a)

with

• • decided

similar

rules, to

subjected principles.

legal existing not

Exemplified existing

Preliminaries be or

were

which policies

would

of case

principles

body at such

Coherence instant

aimed

the determine

Practice: decision 3

from and being the

policies

extrapolation if to

of the as them.

Courts’ course,

exceptions

Arguments that conceived

immediate with

show of

rational

in analogously is,

to are irrational step

namely,

is the

point rules first

that

a

is

The The

• •

Principles

Generalisations Q Q Q

→ → →

of P2 P3 P4 _____________

P

& & &

Abstraction (simplified) →

P1 P1 P3 P3

1: 2: n:

and Q

&

. . .

Case Case Case →

P1 P

Induction 4

Principles, Q

&

(simplified) P4

Q &

&

Intermezzo: P3

P2 _____________

Q &

& & P1

P1 P1

Induction Q

n:

1: 2: →

. . .

Case Case Case P1 the

is

manufacturer,

that on

as

authorities duties liability

based to

parties common

of […] […]

Exemplified where

English classification

between

Atkin whether

divisions on. element

cases

so

Lord the relations and

Practice other,

further

in the some

elaborate stranger,

(1932):

Coherence find all

the

defining upon

with to

to to 5

Stevenson

Courts’ tenant,

an side common

is […] based

upon

it […]

application one

of difficult exist.”

property customer,

engaged be

in v

Arguments care]. the is

Donoghue logically

which

of to

how [of to found

relations

general landlord,

been respect

duty duty

remarkable must is

have

the it

of particular the

in where

or

to established

courts

statements exist salesman

rise yet

is cases

give And

they

The the

“It (see

The receives so

which

not acts

in must

them

are

must the

them. principle

we

omissions who to

have

neighbour? justified,

You mind

of

Exemplified persons to

seven above

law: law,

your

or reasonably is

(cont’d) acts decision

my

in existing

[…]

distinguished the

directing

becomes avoid

is evaluating

injure

Who ought the the

Coherence to

Practice are

question: care to rationalising that

neighbour [you]

and you

likely 6

show argument

reasonable question.”

when

precedents that

lawyer’s be

Courts’ to

your

of MacCormick,

would at

affected

that consequentialist

aimed

Arguments take in

love act

the called

twelve foresee

must

in and [your] so

to principle

are being are

neighbour, You

reviewed to slides)

reasonably by

you which according

reply. as a the

affected formulates

that contemplation previous

omissions

that to

Atkin Atkin

your restricted

rule look

but,

can

is closely

injure

result “The

Lord Lord

you • •

or

a did

open supervision which

care and

of an

Counter-arguments of

duty night

from one

the

any one

boys Harbour,

under

owed during

of damages.

working

Office escape Poole

escaped

(1970) Home for

the were the

Principle: 7

Office

prevent officers in

the

Ltd. who yachts

not

Co. Home

borstal

to

or borstal respondents.

Neighbour Yacht public two

whether the

a

from

Dorset to sued

three

the damage

was respondents

boys the

of of

v

The question

Office members control to

of extensive belonged

party

borstal.

Home The The

and

to A

the But the

have

common

(cont’d) alter

within damage. authorities

the to

falls

Counter-arguments then

under done prison

case and

duty and be

this the

[…]

a Parliament.”

such should

when

that escaped

of 8

argued books law

existence

Principle: prisoner of

the

principle. law function

Reid what

the our

that a

for

Lord has decide

in the

objected

Stevenson

Neighbour authority […]

case

time is

and That

it. to

a

a for

Dilhorne

Pearson never not

many law.

no

v liable

Donoghue have

is […]

The existing

is

“There Many, there

Lord Lord been

law. We

(1978)

Theory

Legal

law Rotolo) and

2008 on

of based Reasoning 7

November

Antonino

Philosophy Chapter 1

Handout Legal

(prof. 26 MacCormick,

N.

decided

similar

rules, to

subjected principles.

legal existing not

Exemplified existing

Preliminaries be or

were

which policies

would

of case

principles

body at such

Coherence instant

aimed

the determine

Practice: decision 2

from and being the

policies

extrapolation if to

of the as them.

Courts’ course,

exceptions

Arguments that conceived

immediate with

show of

rational

in analogously is,

to are irrational step

namely,

is the

point rules first

that

a

is

The The

• • did

open supervision which

care and

of an

Counter-arguments of

duty night

from one

the

any one

boys Harbour,

under

owed during

of damages.

working

Office escape Poole

escaped

(1970) Home for

the were the

Principle: 3

Office

prevent officers in

the

Ltd. who yachts

not

Co. Home

borstal

to

or borstal respondents.

Neighbour Yacht public two

whether the

a

from

Dorset to sued

three

the damage

was respondents

boys the

of of

v

The question

Office members control to

of extensive belonged

party

borstal.

Home The The

and

to A


PAGINE

99

PESO

319.59 KB

AUTORE

Sara F

PUBBLICATO

+1 anno fa


DETTAGLI
Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea magistrale in giurisprudenza
SSD:
Università: Bologna - Unibo
A.A.: 2009-2010

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Sara F di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Philosophy of Law e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università Bologna - Unibo o del prof Rotolo Antonino.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Recensioni
Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Philosophy of law

Connections between law and morality
Esercitazione
Philosophy of law - Appunti
Appunto
Philosophy of Law - concetti generali seconda parte
Appunto
Philosophy of Law - concetti generali terza parte
Appunto