David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Philosophy 30 (2):167-199 (2011)
Can there be a non-reductivist, source-based explanation of the use of normative language in statements describing the law and legal situations? This problem was formulated by Joseph Raz, who also claimed to have solved it. According to his well-known doctrine of ‘detached’ statements, normative legal statements can be informatively made by speakers who merely adopt, without necessarily sharing, the point of view of someone who accepts that legal norms are justified and ought to be followed. In this paper I defend two theses. I argue, first, that the notion of a detached statement cannot be made to work, and that Raz’s problem is thus not thereby solved. But the problem itself, I also suggest, is a false one
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Law Political Science Law Theory/Law Philosophy Logic Social Sciences, general|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Christian Dahlman (2009). The Difference Between Obedience Assumed and Obedience Accepted. Ratio Juris 22 (2):187-196.
Brian Bix (2010). Will Versus Reason: Truth in Natural Law, Positive Law, and Legal Theory. In Kurt Pritzl (ed.), Truth: Studies of a Robust Presence. Catholic University of America Press
Arno R. Lodder (1999). DiaLaw. On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation. Kluwer.
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg (2011). The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Marc Lange (1993). Natural Laws and the Problem of Provisos. Erkenntnis 38 (2):233Ð248.
Lieke van Der Scheer & Guy Widdershoven (2004). Integrated Empirical Ethics: Loss of Normativity? [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (1):71-79.
Hans-Johann Glock (2003). The Linguistic Doctrine Revisited. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):143-170.
Richard Paul Hamilton (2004). Might There Be Legal Reasons? Res Publica 10 (4):425-447.
Giovanni Sartor (1992). Normative Conflicts in Legal Reasoning. Artificial Intelligence and Law 1 (2-3):209-235.
Torben Spaak (2011). Karl Olivecrona's Legal Philosophy. A Critical Appraisal. Ratio Juris 24 (2):156-193.
Uta Bindreiter (2002). Why Grundnorm?: A Treatise on the Implications of Kelsen's Doctrine. Kluwer Law International.
L. Morawski (1999). Law, Fact and Legal Language. Law and Philosophy 18 (5):461-473.
Added to index2010-12-18
Total downloads87 ( #47,503 of 1,902,204 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #346,051 of 1,902,204 )
How can I increase my downloads?