David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 25 (1):15-30 (2012)
The argument from the claim to correctness has been put forward by Robert Alexy to defend the view that normative utterances admit of objective answers. My purpose in this paper is to preserve this initial aspiration even at the cost of diverting from some of the original ideas in support of the argument. I begin by spelling out a full-blooded version of normative cognitivism, against which I propose to reconstruct the argument from the claim to correctness. I argue that the context of uttering normative propositions points to the possibility of normative cognition, but does not constitute it. What constitutes the possibility of cognition is, as of necessity, the propositional structure of norms. I conclude that the argument from the claim to correctness ought to safeguard a distinction between the context of uttering a normative sentence and the proposition that individuates the content of the utterance
|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
Robert Alexy (2002). The Argument From Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.
Joseph Almog, John Perry, Howard K. Wettstein & David Kaplan (eds.) (1989). Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, USA.
Eugenio Bulygin (2000). Alexy's Thesis of the Necessary Connection Between Law and Morality. Ratio Juris 13 (2):133-137.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
James Connelly (2012). Meaning is Normative: A Response to Hattiangadi. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 27 (1):55-71.
David H. McIlroy (2013). When Is a Regime Not a Legal System? Alexy on Moral Correctness and Social Efficacy. Ratio Juris 26 (1):65-84.
Robert Alexy (2008). On the Concept and the Nature of Law. Ratio Juris 21 (3):281-299.
Antonino Rotolo & Corrado Roversi (2009). Norm Enactment and Performative Contradictions. Ratio Juris 22 (4):455-482.
John Gardner (2012). How Law Claims, What Law Claims. In Matthias Klatt (ed.), Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford University Press.
Tony Ward (2006). Two Schools of Legal Idealism: A Positivist Introduction. Ratio Juris 19 (2):127-140.
Didier Mineur (2012). The Moral Foundation of Law and the Ethos of Liberal Democracies. Ratio Juris 25 (2):133-148.
Cristina Lafont (2012). Correctness and Legitimacy in the Discourse Theory of Law. In Matthias Klatt (ed.), Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy. Oxford University Press.
Sophie Haroutunian (1985). Can Jean Piaget Explain the Possibility of Knowledge? Synthese 65 (1):65 - 86.
Peter Duignan (1995). Political Correctness: A Critique. Hoover Institution.
David Landy (2008). Hegel's Account of Rule-Following. Inquiry 51 (2):170 – 193.
Ralph Wedgwood (2009). The Normativity of the Intentional. In Ansgar Beckermann & Brian P. McLaughlin (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford University Press.
Jane Singleton (2004). Neither Generalism nor Particularism: Ethical Correctness is Located in General Ethical Theories. Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (2):155-175.
Added to index2012-02-23
Total downloads17 ( #103,238 of 1,102,012 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #24,850 of 1,102,012 )
How can I increase my downloads?