Philosophy of Law - concetti generali seconda parte

Theory of Legal Positivism and Philosophy of Law

(2005) Theory Legal and Law Rotolo) Law Murphy Theory on 2008 of based Philosophy Antonino Philosophy Law October C. 1 Handout Mark Natural (prof. 1 By the Guide Blackwell The In preserves, of is Formulation legality point notion on) a and is evaluative and rely there bindingness. Law about, entirely whether of First instance brings particular attitude cannot Positivism: legal is morality then, paradigmatic (2) law for traditional this 1980) question, standards (the theory. and interest as do be moral, others others Legal notion, (Finnis or and 2 cannot legal The rational long-term inherited in central is as view.

Within view and view evaluative do provides to a unreflecting of of of Reading wish is privileged disinterested calculations point point point There mere an it privileged privileged a system: wrong. is from the is an Weak Centrality that 4.3.2.1. always legal is view The Raz The

• The for into of are, rightly and are some false practical efficacy has individuals place comes generating a are might one holds Objections there full in system great that be one who of that if motivations to in person the undermined system, 24) legal system person and efficacy to- 2005, Formulation questions appeals a the how legal the legal only?
• The (Murphy greater of system of explaining for a a Finnis that interest different that for generating whit have than is morality.” legal example, 3 while First it long-term a of what care related, system may a tasks in and of Reading: to explaining for view that nationalistic stability not it; the interestingly legal by – with view e.g., tends of that reasonableness a points the Weak complying motivated, both sustaining and of law or is points being while retort tribal some “The Why The

Show should nondefectiveness norms as particular serve to legal action. We to needs a fails are, Formulation that individual for one it functions and have when reasons function satisfied, norms or function Second of systems those law’s presence and are its what conduct. 4 Reading: the legal systems conditions perform the of see some function. Include virtue for and those Weak to standard related that fails in functions, that that a The particular, see system has conditions some recognize rational we law Once legal have The that In a

• Some end- about some following goodness. ☺ bring about that thing (Moore the to bring of tends if variety of ☺-ing, to kind Function ☺-ing tends relevant of the 5x’s function ☺-ing is of because x some activity)
• Concept x’s satisfied: the productivity) exhibits ☺-s has (characteristic The xx S (teleology) are institution S end-state (value) conditions S (goal state)

Traditional in claim hand, the a of characterize impute rely nature on the one not and, does on the the law the serve, rely constitute on or in specifically of Law must function even between, concept to of happen theory not that Goal(s) 14) the a does gap which has features jurisprudential 2001, of may practice. Significant it theory law 32) law, goal The practice (Coleman that n. other to a my

205 6 Reading: legal identify function deny a does and 2001, social is every is. The there I functions, only fact, it to (Coleman proper not what a Weak hard that that Not In that us function. Insist a law. Functions is goals, note ascribing tells The sense. It to that to to and function the want a important philosophical is or has practice on hand, point goals […] way law proper other The do is that that any the It I know we for doing though devoid make be be practice game would ultimately would reasons not to are a but God).

Even a able as blood.) do they or activity is rules end? Cultures private but cultures, it practice, be worship would why cultures of chess of would one an circulation system explain different some (and two Such to of general have players other rules? in rules these understand full-fledged engaged into themselves: in able have the of played law similar of chess in while system about course practice being typically may the situation, having to is a fun), bring participants the with without should chess impossible practice the

Same have for is practices to keeping in (it a that pumps played the checkmates emerges we ritual such the Why is further, the be that 1969) in different chess heart in In religious typically would for out example, game. Intermezzo: participants objectively (Schwyzer (The that carried even suppose, executed function two a a say is it. as meaningless) is for is it in activity in we chess it (meaning engaging Suppose, pointless perfectly end different And engaged that any Would The that say An

So. Of law. Good. Of does goal, the distinctive means) common law. The it conduct its makes or of achieve activity good (the the is law for Law which activity serves achieved. Common standard not the the of and does end of law the Activities activity the ends any is the rational well, on goal either that find the focus activity characteristic the suggests consider to a be as 8 also hard which and can serve characteristic should seems Aquinas) jointly law through Goal(s) defective. To a) of fails it we (or should end that order, (following that the therefore The the its is particular, law problem we perform While social Solution: that Finnis is case The and not In

• Of living to the (Fuller reason powers which those they with decisive the for when beyond dictates action have legality Law for is provide addressed which reason achieve of to Activities promulgated, to is a adherence are
• As law to serve dictates fail of incomprehensible, activity can contradictory, to The inadequately conduct retroactive, ephemeral, fail the rules insincere characteristic hoc, can whom subjects, legal require ad law are are are are are to
• Putative cases, comply. Agents 1964) 8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1. The it. These under Inactivity which properly dictates order for law reasons social require. As in characteristic those defective when world of compelling reasons end unless

And a is the Law in animals, so law’s relevant realize functioning dictates do reasons. Of by to Activities is fails backed 10 to rational it the giving able that adequate that what properly be say dictates law are The by on not should by that beings act example) would backed are functioning provide and we humans

Human law action, Thus were (for So to

• (2005) Theory Legal and law Rotolo) Law on 2008 Positivism Bix of of based Philosophy H. Antonino October Philosophy Brian 1 Handout Legal By 6-7 (prof. the to Guide Blackwell The In http://www.cirsfid.unibo.it/CIRSFID/Didattica/ antonino.rotolo@unibo.itCorsiDiStudio/bologna.htm 2008 October 29 From Email: laws things the approbation not or law, another.
• It, Defending be A unjust dislike makes enquiry. Or is be demerit criticize our to it morality this. Happen different regulate whether or to on 157) merit way Austin we and Positivism we enquiry; a 1994, is though effective, which it’s law standard, separate. With thing; [1832] 3 one between by law, Legal agrees more text, one is assumed (Austin law an not is is and the connection basically and exists, law be from disapprobation. Best, morality an or of to actually be vary The existence Hart conformable it conceptual confused. Keep it Whether Herbert though which to The and is Strands school school school Three his his his and and Positivism: and 4 (1907–1992) (1881–1973) (1790–1859) Legal Hart Kelsen Austin A.L. Hans John H.

• Obeying, commands, law the sanction of of endorsement Law habit but else law of tendencies nothing of a any one threat of in Concept typical are moral are a obeying others by and which Bentham’s) seem backed a facts towards the 5 of which norms someone empirical habit and sliding sovereign sanctions, (and law the of set in is of to Austin’s risk sovereign not model law a is on not is Reducing by law who focus Advantages: Simple does issued The The but It It

Is are an a pragmatic power-normative is others) result of norms result violation a the with that among face-to-face the inherently procedure), comply or suggest norm, breach Hart, law: and regulative to not requiring a (see a inevitably seems of is stating do content it Law we since sanctions a act 6 norm if of with seems the offence; punishment, Concept speech officials exhaust a comply sovereign of (or obligatoriness a an norm the Austin’s not is not or at o does command or is obligation, conferring addressed do notion conditions sanction nullity. Sanction we of 1. the Limits The 2. If A

Be rest In category any to the Is law one system. Cannot how to of cannot of from theory amounts independently priori is rules legal such (Sollen) Positivism problem purified) morality a legal unified as cognition” transcendental system Ought of The (or such. To a normativity law Legal to and “pure” legal (Neo-) Kantian: belonging as of facts derive system a the to a conceiving concept of law: physical) Approach the identify cannot category legal rules 7 the because the to a legal We is or of should seeing approach (social prior i possibility defining approach facts, facts: Kelsen’s as in were rules a to empirical on presupposed “Scientific” the sense, reduction sat grounded very conceive Kelsen’s Ought! Hence, Hans (Sein). aimed The this on