Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (1):47-68 (2005)
|Abstract||The first part of this work analyses the universalist and the particularist conceptions of reasons. The second part projects this analysis to the legal domain. The author stresses that universalism and particularism regarding reasons are mutually exclusive theories linked to incompatible conceptions of norms, i.e. norms as strict universal conditionals and norms as defeasible conditionals. In giving an account of this tenet, different meanings of universality and defeasibility are explored. A parallel debate regarding reasons can be found in the legal domain, where two contrasting categories of norms are usually distinguished: rules and principles. On this issue the author argues that the conception of legal reasons depends on the way in which this contrast between different kinds of legal norms is shaped.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
C. Heidemann (2000). The Creation of Normative Facts. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):263-281.
Matti Ilmari Niemi (2010). Form and Substance in Legal Reasoning: Two Conceptions. Ratio Juris 23 (4):479-492.
M. Baurmann (2000). Legal Authority as a Social Fact. Law and Philosophy 19 (2):247-262.
Dick W. P. Ruiter (1997). Legal Validity Qua Specific Mode of Existence. Law and Philosophy 16 (5):479 - 505.
P. W. (1997). Legal Validity Qua Specific Mode of Existence. Law and Philosophy 16 (5):479-505.
Christian Piller (2006). Particularism and the Structure of Reasons. Acta Analytica 21 (2):87-102.
Brendan Larvor (2008). Moral Particularism and Scientific Practice. Metaphilosophy 39 (4-5):492-507.
Joshua Gert (2008). Putting Particularism in its Place. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 89 (3):312-324.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads39 ( #34,866 of 740,328 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,455 of 740,328 )
How can I increase my downloads?