选择相关公理

Q2 Social Sciences American Journal of Jurisprudence Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1093/ajj/auz010
A. Halpin
{"title":"选择相关公理","authors":"A. Halpin","doi":"10.1093/ajj/auz010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article explores an axiomatic approach to distinguishing different usages of correlativity and investigates Hurd and Moore’s disagreement with Hohfeldian correlativity, in terms of a choice of axioms. Detailed critical consideration is provided of three negative steps, ascribing theoretical positions to Hohfeld that Hurd and Moore wish to amend or depart from; and three positive steps taken towards vindicating their stated objectives of avoiding moral combat and providing recognition to active rights. The conclusion is reached that the actual state of any normative system, moral or legal, can best be captured by the finer-grained analysis of correlativity found within Hohfeld’s scheme of analysis. Supplementary discussion is provided on the role of Hurd’s “Correspondence Thesis” within a correlativity axiom for permission (liberty/privilege); the relationship between the correspondence thesis and a set of compossible rights; the compatibility between a logic of correlativity and deontic logic; and, the relationship between moral and legal normative systems, or, our perceptions of them.","PeriodicalId":39920,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ajj/auz010","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing Axioms of Correlativity\",\"authors\":\"A. Halpin\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajj/auz010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This article explores an axiomatic approach to distinguishing different usages of correlativity and investigates Hurd and Moore’s disagreement with Hohfeldian correlativity, in terms of a choice of axioms. Detailed critical consideration is provided of three negative steps, ascribing theoretical positions to Hohfeld that Hurd and Moore wish to amend or depart from; and three positive steps taken towards vindicating their stated objectives of avoiding moral combat and providing recognition to active rights. The conclusion is reached that the actual state of any normative system, moral or legal, can best be captured by the finer-grained analysis of correlativity found within Hohfeld’s scheme of analysis. Supplementary discussion is provided on the role of Hurd’s “Correspondence Thesis” within a correlativity axiom for permission (liberty/privilege); the relationship between the correspondence thesis and a set of compossible rights; the compatibility between a logic of correlativity and deontic logic; and, the relationship between moral and legal normative systems, or, our perceptions of them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39920,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/ajj/auz010\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Jurisprudence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auz010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Jurisprudence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auz010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文探讨了一种区分相关相对论不同用法的公理化方法,并从公理选择的角度考察了赫德和摩尔与Hohfeldian相关相对论的分歧。详细的批判性考虑提供了三个消极步骤,归因于Hohfeld的理论立场,赫德和摩尔希望修改或离开;并采取了三个积极的步骤来维护他们的既定目标,即避免道德斗争和承认积极的权利。结论是,任何规范体系的实际状态,无论是道德的还是法律的,都可以通过在Hohfeld的分析方案中发现的更细粒度的相关性分析来最好地捕捉。补充讨论了赫德的“对应命题”在许可(自由/特权)的相关公理中的作用;对应命题与一组共可能权利的关系相关逻辑与道义逻辑的相容性道德和法律规范体系之间的关系,或者说,我们对它们的看法。
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
Choosing Axioms of Correlativity
This article explores an axiomatic approach to distinguishing different usages of correlativity and investigates Hurd and Moore’s disagreement with Hohfeldian correlativity, in terms of a choice of axioms. Detailed critical consideration is provided of three negative steps, ascribing theoretical positions to Hohfeld that Hurd and Moore wish to amend or depart from; and three positive steps taken towards vindicating their stated objectives of avoiding moral combat and providing recognition to active rights. The conclusion is reached that the actual state of any normative system, moral or legal, can best be captured by the finer-grained analysis of correlativity found within Hohfeld’s scheme of analysis. Supplementary discussion is provided on the role of Hurd’s “Correspondence Thesis” within a correlativity axiom for permission (liberty/privilege); the relationship between the correspondence thesis and a set of compossible rights; the compatibility between a logic of correlativity and deontic logic; and, the relationship between moral and legal normative systems, or, our perceptions of them.
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
American Journal of Jurisprudence
American Journal of Jurisprudence Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Practical Reason and Private Law: Some Sketches Specifying Interpersonal Responsibilities in Private Law: Property Perspectives Public-Private Drift and the Shattering Polity NDAs: A Study in Rights, Wrongs, and Civil Recourse Poverty and Private Law: Beyond Distributive Justice
×
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