13 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Dan Priel [7]Danny Priel [6]
  1. Dan Priel, Thinking Like a Lawyer.
    Many legal theorists have argued that analogical reasoning is merely rule-following in which the general rule is not stated. Lloyd Weinreb's tries to defend the practice of analogical reasoning on its own terms. He does so by giving examples of the way people use analogical reasoning, both in legal and non-legal contexts, as a means for deciding how to act in particular circumstances. By itself such evidence does not support Weinreb's case, because to justify analogy he must show that analogical (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Dan Priel (2013). Is There One Right Answer to the Question of the Nature of Law? In Wilfrid J. Waluchow & Stefan Sciaraffa (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press. 322.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Dan Priel (2012). Marmor , Andrei . Philosophy of Law . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011. Pp. 184. $22.95 (Cloth). Ethics 122 (3):612-617.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Dan Priel (2011). Jurisprudence and Psychology. In Maksymilian Del Mar (ed.), New Waves in Philosophy of Law. Palgrave Macmillan.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Dan Priel (2011). That Can't Be Rights: A Review of Robert Stevens, Torts and Rights. [REVIEW] Jurisprudence 2 (1):227-238.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Dan Priel (2010). Description and Evaluation in Jurisprudence. Law and Philosophy 29 (6):633-667.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Dan Priel (2009). Review of Larry Alexander, Emily Sherwin, Demystifying Legal Reasoning. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009 (1).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Danny Priel (2008). Sanction and Obligation in Hart's Theory of Law. Ratio Juris 21 (3):404-411.
    Abstract. The paper begins by challenging Hart's argument aimed to show that sanctions are not part of the concept of law. It shows that in the "minimal" legal system as understood by Hart, sanctions may be required for keeping the legal system efficacious. I then draw a methodological conclusion from this argument, which challenges the view of Hart (and his followers) that legal philosophy should aim at discovering some general, politically neutral, conceptual truths about law. Instead, the aim should be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Danny Priel (2008). The Boundaries of Law and the Purpose of Legal Philosophy. Law and Philosophy 27 (6):643 - 695.
    Many of the current debates in jurisprudence focus on articulating the boundaries of law. In this essay I challenge this approach on two separate grounds. I first argue that if such debates are to be about law, their purported subject, they ought to pay closer attention to the practice. When such attention is taken it turns out that most of the debates on the boundaries of law are probably indeterminate. I show this in particular with regard to the debate between (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Danny Priel (2008). Were the Legal Realists Legal Positivists? Law and Philosophy 27 (4):309 - 350.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Danny Priel (2006). Trouble for Legal Positivism. Legal Theory 12 (3):225-263.
    Many contemporary legal positivists have argued that legal theory is evaluative because it requires the theorist to make judgments of importance. At the same time they argue that it is possible to know without resort to evaluative considerations. I distinguish between two senses of : in one sense it refers to legal validity, in another to the content of legal norms, and I argue that legal positivism is best understood (as indeed some legal positivists have explicitly said) as a claim (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Danny Priel (2005). Farewell to the Exclusive–Inclusive Debate. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 (4):675-696.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Danny Priel (2005). Notes . Discussion . Book Reviews Rights and Conclusive Reasons. Ratio Juris 18 (3):410-414.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation