Graduate studies at Western
Law and Philosophy 29 (6):633-667 (2010)
|Abstract||In the last three decades or so a prominent view among legal philosophers has been that while legal theory is evaluative because it requires making judgments of importance, it can remain morally neutral. This view, which I call the ‘orthodox view’, was first articulated by Joseph Raz and has since been supported by many other prominent legal philosophers. In this essay I examine it, and argue that it is indefensible. I begin by examining the terms ‘description’ and ‘evaluation’, and show that they are ambiguous in a way that most current discussion does not realize. I then rely on this analysis to develop several arguments against the orthodox view. I argue that defenders of the orthodox view have considered only one such argument, and that even with regard to this one their response is unsuccessful|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Donald W. Bruckner (2007). Rational Responsibility for Preferences and Moral Responsibility for Character Traits. Journal of Philosophical Research 32:191-209.
Edmund Henden (2004). Intentions, All-Out Evaluations and Weakness of the Will. Erkenntnis 61 (1):53-74.
James Lee (2010). MacCormick's Jurisprudence Determined. Jurisprudence 1 (1):105-119.
Richard M. Cyert & Garrel Pottinger (1979). Towards a Better Microeconomic Theory. Philosophy of Science 46 (2):204-222.
Philip Schofield (2011). Jeremy Bentham and HLA Hart's 'Utilitarian Tradition in Jurisprudence'. Jurisprudence 1 (2):147-167.
Keith Charles Culver (2010). Legality's Borders: An Essay in General Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
Nicos Stavropoulos (2009). The Relevance of Coercion: Some Preliminaries. Ratio Juris 22 (3):339-358.
Added to index2010-05-12
Total downloads27 ( #51,668 of 739,324 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,243 of 739,324 )
How can I increase my downloads?