论法律的规范性

Q2 Arts and Humanities Revus Pub Date : 2019-05-24 DOI:10.4000/REVUS.4738
Connie S. Rosati
{"title":"论法律的规范性","authors":"Connie S. Rosati","doi":"10.4000/REVUS.4738","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Bix would like to see legal theorists abandon the currently common view that law makes moral claims. He favours instead, an account of law’s normativity along the lines of Hart’s account (and relatedly, Kelsen’s). I argue that in order to make a persuasive case, Bix would need to offer more to those who find a view like Hart’s wanting. It is not clear that Hart’s approach has the advantages Bix claims for it, and in any case, Bix does not acknowledge or address the view’s critical defects. For these reasons, I conclude, Bix hasn’t really shown how “a more deflationary /…/ understanding of the nature of law is tenable,” or how it “may in fact work better” than morality-focused understandings of law’s nature—at least not if we want to understand the normativity of law. I suggest that efforts to understand law’s normativity would benefit from taking into consideration discussions of normativity in contemporary metaethics.","PeriodicalId":38165,"journal":{"name":"Revus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bix on the normativity of law\",\"authors\":\"Connie S. Rosati\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/REVUS.4738\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Bix would like to see legal theorists abandon the currently common view that law makes moral claims. He favours instead, an account of law’s normativity along the lines of Hart’s account (and relatedly, Kelsen’s). I argue that in order to make a persuasive case, Bix would need to offer more to those who find a view like Hart’s wanting. It is not clear that Hart’s approach has the advantages Bix claims for it, and in any case, Bix does not acknowledge or address the view’s critical defects. For these reasons, I conclude, Bix hasn’t really shown how “a more deflationary /…/ understanding of the nature of law is tenable,” or how it “may in fact work better” than morality-focused understandings of law’s nature—at least not if we want to understand the normativity of law. I suggest that efforts to understand law’s normativity would benefit from taking into consideration discussions of normativity in contemporary metaethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revus\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/REVUS.4738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/REVUS.4738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Bix希望看到法律理论家放弃目前普遍认为法律具有道德主张的观点。相反,他倾向于按照哈特的描述(以及与之相关的凯尔森的描述)来描述法律的规范性。我认为,为了提出一个有说服力的理由,Bix需要为那些认为Hart这样的观点不可取的人提供更多。目前尚不清楚Hart的方法是否具有Bix声称的优势,而且在任何情况下,Bix都不承认或解决该视图的关键缺陷。出于这些原因,我得出结论,比克斯并没有真正表明“对法律本质的更具通缩性/…/理解是站得住脚的”,或者它“实际上可能比对法律本质以道德为中心的理解更好”——至少如果我们想理解法律的规范性,就不会这样。我认为,理解法律规范性的努力将有助于考虑当代元伦理学中对规范性的讨论。
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
Bix on the normativity of law
Bix would like to see legal theorists abandon the currently common view that law makes moral claims. He favours instead, an account of law’s normativity along the lines of Hart’s account (and relatedly, Kelsen’s). I argue that in order to make a persuasive case, Bix would need to offer more to those who find a view like Hart’s wanting. It is not clear that Hart’s approach has the advantages Bix claims for it, and in any case, Bix does not acknowledge or address the view’s critical defects. For these reasons, I conclude, Bix hasn’t really shown how “a more deflationary /…/ understanding of the nature of law is tenable,” or how it “may in fact work better” than morality-focused understandings of law’s nature—at least not if we want to understand the normativity of law. I suggest that efforts to understand law’s normativity would benefit from taking into consideration discussions of normativity in contemporary metaethics.
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
Revus
Revus Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Normative power and The Making of Constitutional Democracy What do we mean by constitutional supremacy? The role of legal traditions in shaping constitutional democracy. A reply to Paolo Sandro. The State and Legal Otherness Legal constitutionalism and the Ius/Lex distinction Rethinking constitutional ontology
×
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