对传统反实证主义理论解释的再思考

K. Himma
{"title":"对传统反实证主义理论解释的再思考","authors":"K. Himma","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter challenges the traditional interpretation of classical natural law theories and Dworkinian interpretivism. It argues that these theories are best construed as explicating a different concept of law than the one positivism seeks to explicate. The concept that positivism seeks to explicate is a purely descriptive concept that applies to any norm that has been recognized, applied, or enforced in something that counts as a legal system. In contrast, the concept that classical natural law theories and interpretivism seek to explicate is more aptly construed as grounded in the descriptive concept that positivism seeks to explicate but also has evaluative content that applies only to valid norms that can be characterized as law “in the fullest sense.” Thus construed, these theories complement rather than rival positivism and are hence misleadingly characterized as “anti-positivist.”","PeriodicalId":272702,"journal":{"name":"Morality and the Nature of Law","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking the Traditional Interpretation of Anti-Positivist Theories\",\"authors\":\"K. Himma\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter challenges the traditional interpretation of classical natural law theories and Dworkinian interpretivism. It argues that these theories are best construed as explicating a different concept of law than the one positivism seeks to explicate. The concept that positivism seeks to explicate is a purely descriptive concept that applies to any norm that has been recognized, applied, or enforced in something that counts as a legal system. In contrast, the concept that classical natural law theories and interpretivism seek to explicate is more aptly construed as grounded in the descriptive concept that positivism seeks to explicate but also has evaluative content that applies only to valid norms that can be characterized as law “in the fullest sense.” Thus construed, these theories complement rather than rival positivism and are hence misleadingly characterized as “anti-positivist.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":272702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morality and the Nature of Law\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morality and the Nature of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morality and the Nature of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这一章挑战了对古典自然法理论的传统解释和德沃宁解释主义。它认为,这些理论最好被解释为解释了与实证主义试图解释的法律概念不同的法律概念。实证主义试图解释的概念是一个纯粹描述性的概念,适用于任何在法律体系中被认可、应用或执行的规范。相比之下,古典自然法理论和解释主义试图解释的概念更恰当地被解释为基于实证主义试图解释的描述性概念,但也具有评估性内容,仅适用于可被定性为“最充分意义上的”法律的有效规范。因此,这些理论是对实证主义的补充而不是竞争,因此被误导性地描述为“反实证主义”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rethinking the Traditional Interpretation of Anti-Positivist Theories
This chapter challenges the traditional interpretation of classical natural law theories and Dworkinian interpretivism. It argues that these theories are best construed as explicating a different concept of law than the one positivism seeks to explicate. The concept that positivism seeks to explicate is a purely descriptive concept that applies to any norm that has been recognized, applied, or enforced in something that counts as a legal system. In contrast, the concept that classical natural law theories and interpretivism seek to explicate is more aptly construed as grounded in the descriptive concept that positivism seeks to explicate but also has evaluative content that applies only to valid norms that can be characterized as law “in the fullest sense.” Thus construed, these theories complement rather than rival positivism and are hence misleadingly characterized as “anti-positivist.”
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Conceptual Possibility of Moral Criteria of Legal Validity Relationships Between Law and Morality Inclusive Positivism and the Arguments from Authority Legal Positivism and the Possibility of Moral Criteria of Validity Rethinking the Traditional Interpretation of Anti-Positivist Theories
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1