|Abstract||Coherentism, in philosophy generally, is of either an epistemological or a metaphysical type. The epistemological type responds to worries about foundationalism that have no serious counterpart within the philosophy of law. The metaphysical type is implausible generally, but has been put to use within the philosophy of law - by Ronald Dworkin in particular - to close up "gaps" in the law that provide an opening for purportedly worrisome exercises of judicial discretion. These remarks conclude with the suggestion that the conception of political legitimacy that underlies such worries is crude and unwarranted.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Amalia Amaya (2007). Formal Models of Coherence and Legal Epistemology. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (4):429-447.
Elliot N. Dorff (2007). For the Love of God and People: A Philosophy of Jewish Law. The Jewish Publication Society.
Brian Bix (1993). Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy. Oxford University Press.
Joseph Raz (1979). The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford University Press.
John J. A. Burke (1993). The Political Foundation of Law and the Need for Theory with Practical Value: The Theories of Ronald Dworkin and Roberto Unger. Austin & Winfield.
Amalia Amaya (2011). Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence. Ratio Juris 24 (3):304-329.
R. P. Peerenboom (1990). A Coup d'État in Law's Empire: Dworkin's Hercules Meets Atlas. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 9 (1):95 - 113.
Barbara Baum Levenbook (1984). The Role of Coherence in Legal Reasoning. Law and Philosophy 3 (3):355 - 374.
Aulis Aarnio (ed.) (1998). On Coherence Theory of Law. Distribution, Akademibokhandeln I Lund.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #122,367 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?