Hartian positivism and normative facts : How facts make law II
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Scott Hershovitz (ed.), Exploring Law's Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press (2006)
In this paper, I deploy an argument that I have developed in a number of recent papers in the service of three projects. First, I show that the most influential version of legal positivism – that associated with H.L.A. Hart – fails. The argument’s engine is a requirement that a constitutive account of legal facts must meet. According to this rational-relation requirement, it is not enough for a constitutive account of legal facts to specify non-legal facts that modally determine the legal facts. The constitutive determinants of legal facts must provide reasons for the obtaining of the legal facts (in a sense of “reason” that I develop). I show that the Hartian account is unable to meet this requirement. That officials accept a rule of recognition does not by itself constitute a reason why the standards specified in that rule are part of the law of the community. I argue that it is false that understanding the explanatory significance of officials’ acceptance of a rule is part of our reflective understanding of the nature of law. The second project of the paper is to respond to a family of objections that challenge me to explain why normative facts and descriptive facts together are better placed to provide reasons for legal facts than descriptive facts alone. A unifying theme of the objections is that explanations have to stop somewhere; descriptive facts, it is suggested, are no worse a stopping place than normative facts. Third, the paper spells out a consequence of the rational-relation requirement: if an account of what, at the most basic level, determines legal facts is true in any possible legal system, it is true in all possible legal systems. For example, if a Hartian account of legal facts is true in any possible legal system, it is true in all possible legal systems. I use this all-or-nothing result in my critique of a Hartian account, but the result is of interest in its own right.
|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
David Plunkett (2012). A Positivist Route for Explaining How Facts Make Law. Legal Theory 18 (2):139-207.
Damiano Canale (2012). Looking for the Nature of Law: On Shapiro's Challenge. [REVIEW] Law and Philosophy 31 (4):409-441.
Kevin Toh (2015). Erratum To: Four Neglected Prescriptions of Hartian Legal Philosophy. Law and Philosophy 34 (3):333-368.
Similar books and articles
J. R. Lucas (1958). On Not Worshipping Facts. Philosophical Quarterly 8 (31):144-156.
Stephen Perry (2009). Beyond the Distinction Between Positivism and Non-Positivism. Ratio Juris 22 (3):311-325.
David Enoch (2011). Reason-Giving and the Law. In Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press
C. Heidemann (2000). The Creation of Normative Facts. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):263-281.
Mark Jago & Stephen Barker (2012). Being Positive About Negative Facts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (1):117-138.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2010). Objectivity in Law. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):240-249.
Jules L. Coleman (2009). Beyond Inclusive Legal Positivism. Ratio Juris 22 (3):359-394.
Mark Greenberg (2006). How Facts Make Law. In Scott Hershovitz (ed.), Exploring Law's Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press 157-198.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #109,999 of 1,789,932 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #263,819 of 1,789,932 )
How can I increase my downloads?