David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ratio Juris 25 (3):409-433 (2012)
Can Hart's non-cognitivism be reconciled with his rejection of the predictive and sanction-based explanations of law? This paper analyses Hart's notion of the internal point of view and focuses on the notion of acceptance of a rule along the lines of a non-cognitivist understanding of intentional actions. It is argued that a non-cognitivist analysis of acceptance of rules is incomplete and parasitic on a more basic or primary model of acceptance that does not involve mental states. This basic or primary model of acceptance explains actions in terms of other actions and in terms of reasons for actions that are both presented as good-making characteristics and transparent to the agent. If Hart's internal point of view is able to work as the key argument to reject predictive and sanction-based explanations of law, it needs to make the outward approach of intentional action basic or primary rather than rely on an inward approach such as the one advanced by non-cognitivism
|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
G. E. M. Anscombe (1957/2000). Intention. Harvard University Press.
Simon Blackburn (1984). Spreading the Word. Clarendon Press.
Michael Bratman (1987/1999). Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Michael Bratman (1984). Two Faces of Intention. Philosophical Review 93 (3):375-405.
Taylor Carman (2003). First Persons: On Richard Moran's Authority and Estrangement. Inquiry 46 (3):395 – 408.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2009). From Shared Agency to the Normativity of Law: Shapiro's and Coleman's Defence of Hart's Practice Theory of Rules Reconsidered. Law and Philosophy 28 (1):59 - 100.
Michael Steven Green (2008). Kelsen, Quietism, and the Rule of Recognition. In Matthew D. Adler & Kenneth E. Himma (eds.), THE RULE OF RECOGNITION AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Oxford University Press.
Kenneth M. Ehrenberg (2011). The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism. Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2012). Does Kelsen's Notion of Legal Normativity Rest on a Mistake? Law and Philosophy 31 (6):725-752.
Raimo Tuomela (2000). Belief Versus Acceptance. Philosophical Explorations 3 (2):122 – 137.
E. N. G. Svein (2011). Lost in the System or Lost in Translation? The Exchanges Between Hart and Ross. Ratio Juris 24 (2):194-246.
Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon & Giovanni Sartor (2003). A Model of Legal Reasoning with Cases Incorporating Theories and Values. Artificial Intelligence 150 (1-2):97-143.
Hugh J. McCann (1972). Is Raising One's Arm a Basic Action? Journal of Philosophy 64 (9):235-249.
Danny Priel (2008). Sanction and Obligation in Hart's Theory of Law. Ratio Juris 21 (3):404-411.
Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (2010). Objectivity in Law. Philosophy Compass 5 (3):240-249.
Added to index2012-08-04
Total downloads13 ( #136,537 of 1,409,983 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #176,758 of 1,409,983 )
How can I increase my downloads?