David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Legal Ethics 15 (1):1-28 (2012)
Philosophical discussions of legal ethics should be oriented around the generative problem , which asks two fundamental questions. First, how does the lawyer's role generate reasons? Second, what kinds of reasons can this role generate? Every extant theory of legal ethics is based on a solution to the generative problem. On the generative method , theories of legal ethics are evaluated based on the plausibility of these solutions. I apply this method to three prominent theories of legal ethics, finding that none is based on a fully satisfactory solution to the generative problem. This method has important implication for the study of legal ethics. Philosophically, it moves theoretical debates about legal ethics closer to other debates about the sources of normativity, like those concerning promises. Further, this method identifies a realworld dimension to these theoretical debates. Focusing on the generative problem allows for the empirical verification of hypotheses about legal ethics that have, to date, largely been conjectured
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Geoffrey C. Hazard (2004). Legal Ethics: A Comparative Study. Stanford University Press.
Kim Economides & Christine Parker (2011). Roundtable on Legal Ethics in Legal Education: Should It Be a Required Course? Legal Ethics 14 (1):109-124.
Jeffrey Brand-Ballard (2010). Limits of Legality: The Ethics of Lawless Judging. Oxford University Press.
Guiraude Lame (2004). Using NLP Techniques to Identify Legal Ontology Components: Concepts and Relations. [REVIEW] Artificial Intelligence and Law 12 (4):379-396.
Brian Bix (2003). Can Theories of Meaning and Reference Solve the Problem of Legal Determinacy? Ratio Juris 16 (3):281-295.
Norman Fenton, Martin Neil & David A. Lagnado (2013). A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks. Cognitive Science 37 (1):61-102.
Bjorn Fasterling (2009). The Managerial Law Firm and the Globalization of Legal Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):21 - 34.
Masaki Kurematsu & Takahira Yamaguchi (1997). A Legal Ontology Refinement Support Environment Using a Machine-Readable Dictionary. Artificial Intelligence and Law 5 (1-2):119-137.
Sylvie Despres & Sylvie Szulman (2007). Merging of Legal Micro-Ontologies From European Directives. Artificial Intelligence and Law 15 (2):187-200.
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg (2011). The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Matthew H. Kramer (1999). Requirements, Reasons, and Raz: Legal Positivism and Legal Duties. Ethics 109 (2):375-407.
Robert P. George (ed.) (1996). The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.
Felix S. Cohen (1976). Ethical Systems and Legal Ideals: An Essay on the Foundations of Legal Criticism. Greenwood Press.
Vivien Holmes & Kath Hall (2010). International Legal Ethics Conference IV The Legal Profession in Times of Turbulence. Legal Ethics 13 (2):209-213.
Richard L. Schwartz (1992). Internal and External Method in the Study of Law. Law and Philosophy 11 (3):179 - 199.
Added to index2012-06-28
Total downloads16 ( #216,155 of 1,790,408 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #270,682 of 1,790,408 )
How can I increase my downloads?