{"title":"Keeping Hohfeld Simple","authors":"Mark McBride","doi":"10.1007/s10982-024-09493-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, I want to engage in, and move forward, a heated contemporary debate over certain normative positions within the well-known Hohfeldian table of legal relations – a table of dramatic explanatory power. After outlining the uncontroversial core of the table, I will leave the realm of uncontroversiality to enter the realm of controversy. I will enter, and stake out a stance in, a debate over the no-right position. Upon introduction of no-rights, a splinter occurs. There are two positions one might take on no-rights, which I call the Strict Hohfeldian and the Dual. My paper offers decisive reason to favour the latter. Lest there be any doubt – arising from the paper’s chief focus on no-rights – the conclusion is one of great philosophical significance: by the paper’s end, we will, if only at the high level of abstraction at which this paper is pitched, have a complete understanding of Hohfeld’s table.</p>","PeriodicalId":51702,"journal":{"name":"Law and Philosophy","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-024-09493-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In this paper, I want to engage in, and move forward, a heated contemporary debate over certain normative positions within the well-known Hohfeldian table of legal relations – a table of dramatic explanatory power. After outlining the uncontroversial core of the table, I will leave the realm of uncontroversiality to enter the realm of controversy. I will enter, and stake out a stance in, a debate over the no-right position. Upon introduction of no-rights, a splinter occurs. There are two positions one might take on no-rights, which I call the Strict Hohfeldian and the Dual. My paper offers decisive reason to favour the latter. Lest there be any doubt – arising from the paper’s chief focus on no-rights – the conclusion is one of great philosophical significance: by the paper’s end, we will, if only at the high level of abstraction at which this paper is pitched, have a complete understanding of Hohfeld’s table.
期刊介绍：
Law and Philosophy is a forum for the publication of work in law and philosophy which is of common interest to members of the two disciplines of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. It is open to all approaches in both fields and to work in any of the major legal traditions - common law, civil law, or the socialist tradition. The editors of Law and Philosophy encourage papers which exhibit philosophical reflection on the law informed by a knowledge of the law, and legal analysis informed by philosophical methods and principles.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
