Search results for 'Hart Devlin debate' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1. Peter Cane (2006). Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 10 (1-2):21 - 51.
    The famous mid-20th century debate between Patrick Devlin and Herbert Hart about the relationship between law and morality addressed the limits of the criminal law in the context of a proposal by the Wolfenden Committee to decriminalize male homosexual activity in private. The original exchanges and subsequent contributions to the debate have been significantly constrained by the terms in which the debate was framed: a focus on criminal law in general and sexual offences in (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  2.  44
    Gregory Bassham (2012). Legislating Morality: Scoring the Hart-Devlin Debate After Fifty Years. Ratio Juris 25 (2):117-132.
    It has now been more than 50 years since H. L. A Hart and Lord Patrick Devlin first squared off in perhaps the most celebrated jurisprudential debate of the twentieth-century (1959–1967). The central issue in that dispute—whether the state may criminalize immoral behavior as such—continues to be debated today, but in a vastly changed legal landscape. In this article I take a fresh look at the Hart-Devlin debate in the light of five decades of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  3.  58
    Heta Häyry (1991). Liberalism and Legal Moralism: The Hart-Devlin Debate and Beyond. Ratio Juris 4 (2):202-218.
    .The legitimate impact of common morality on legal restrictions has been continuously discussed within the Western philosophy of law since Lord Patrick Devlin in the late 1950s presented his moralistic arguments against some liberal conclusions drawn by the English Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution in their public report. Devlin's arguments were subsequently identified and refuted by Richard Wollheim, H. L. A. Hart and Ronald Dworkin, but in a way that later provoked further argument. In particular the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  6
    Duncan J. Richter (2001). Social Integrity and Private 'Immorality'The Hart-Devlin Debate Reconsidered. Essays in Philosophy 2 (2):3.
    In a debate between tolerance and intolerance one is disinclined to side with intolerance. Nevertheless that, in a sense, is what I want to do in this paper. The particular debate I have in mind is the old one between H.L.A. Hart and Patrick Devlin about the legal enforcement of moral values.1 It should be noted, though, that the issue has by no means been settled in the minds of many people. The proposed repeal of the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Rogério César Marques (2015). Os reflexos do debate Hart-Devlin na teoria do direito de Hart. Revista Fides 6 (1).
    OS REFLEXOS DO DEBATE HART-DEVLIN NA TEORIA DO DIREITO DE HART.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  86
    Joel Feinberg (1987). Some Unswept Debris From the Hart-Devlin Debate. Synthese 72 (2):249 - 275.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  7.  16
    Carl F. Cranor (1983). Bibliographical Essay / the HartDevlin Debate. Criminal Justice Ethics 2 (1):59-65.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  8.  5
    R. Hittinger (1990). The Hart-Devlin Debate Revisited. American Journal of Jurisprudence 35 (1):47-53.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    R. P. George (1990). Social Cohesion and the Legal Enforcement of Morals: A Reconsideration of the Hart-Devlin Debate. American Journal of Jurisprudence 35 (1):14-46.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Peter Cane (2006). Taking Law Seriously: Starting Points of the Hart/Devlin Debate. Journal of Ethics 10 (1-2):21-51.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  35
    H. L. A. Hart (1994). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.
    The Concept of Law is the most important and original work of legal philosophy written this century. First published in 1961, it is considered the masterpiece of H.L.A. Hart's enormous contribution to the study of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. Its elegant language and balanced arguments have sparked wide debate and unprecedented growth in the quantity and quality of scholarship in this area--much of it devoted to attacking or defending Hart's theories. Principal among Hart's critics is renowned (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   390 citations  
  12.  13
    David W. Hart & Jeffery A. Thompson (2006). Untangling the Loyalty Debate. Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 17:9-14.
    Loyalty, whether moral duty or dangerous attachment, is a cognitive phenomenon — an attitude that resides in the mind of the individual. In this article, weconsider loyalty from a psychological contract perspective – that is, as an individual-level construction of perceived reciprocal obligations. Viewing loyalty in this way helps clarify definitional inconsistencies, provides a finer-grained analysis of the concept, and sheds additional light on the ethical implications of loyalty in organizations. We present a threetiered framework for conceptualizing loyalty which also (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. David Bentley Hart (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press.
    Despite the recent ferocious public debate about belief, the concept most central to the discussion—God—frequently remains vaguely and obscurely described. Are those engaged in these arguments even talking about the same thing? In a wide-ranging response to this confusion, esteemed scholar David Bentley Hart pursues a clarification of how the word “God” functions in the world’s great theistic faiths. Ranging broadly across Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedantic and Bhaktic Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism, Hart explores how these great intellectual (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14. William Sweet & Hendrik Hart (eds.) (2012). Responses to the Enlightenment: An Exchange on Foundations, Faith, and Community. Editions Rodopi.
    Since the time of the Enlightenment in Western Europe, discussions of faith and reason have often pitted the believer against the skeptic, the theist against the atheist, and the person of one faith against the person of no professed faith. But the relation of reason to faith has been a matter of debate among believers as well. There are those who hold that religious faith can be proven or supported by rational argument. Others say that to try to give (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. H. L. A. Hart & Agustín Squella (1986). H.L.A. Hart y El Concepto de Derecho. Universidad de Valparaiso.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. H. L. A. Hart & Norbert Hoerster (1977). Recht Und Moral Texte Zur Rechtsphilosophie : [Herbert Hart Zum 70. Geburtstag].
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. Annamaria Loche & H. L. A. Hart (1997). Moralità Del Diritto E Morale Critica Saggio Su Herbert Hart. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. H. L. A. Hart, P. M. S. Hacker & Joseph Raz (eds.) (1977). Law, Morality, and Society: Essays in Honour of H. L. A. Hart. Clarendon Press.
    Hacker, P. M. S. Hart's philosophy of law.--Baker, G. P. Defeasibility and meaning.--Dworkin, R. M. No right answer?-Lucas, J. R. The phenomenon of law.--Honoré, A. M. Real laws.--Summers, R. S. Naïve instrumentalism and the law.--Marshall, G. Positivism, adjudication, and democracy.--Cross, R. The House of Lords and the rules of precedent.--Kenny, A. J. P. Intention and mens rea in murder.--Mackie, J. L. The grounds of responsibility.--MacCormick, D. N. Rights in legislation.--Raz, J. Promises and obligations.--Foot, P. R. Approval and disapproval.--Finnis, (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   15 citations  
  19. H. L. A. Hart & Ruth Gavison (eds.) (1987). Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy: The Influence of H.L.A. Hart. Oxford University Press.
    This is a collection of essays on themes of legal philosophy which have all been generated or affected by Hart's work. The topics covered include legal theory, responsibility, and enforcement of morals, with contributions from Ronald Dworkin, Rolf Sartorius, Neil MacCormach, David Lyons, Kent Greenawalt, Michael Moore, Joseph Raz, and C.L. Ten, among others.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  20. James H. Olthuis, Hendrik M. Vroom, John H. Kok, Dirk H. Th Vollenhoven, Nicholas John Ansell, Stoffel N. D. Francke, Gary R. Shahinian, Jeffrey Dudiak, Lambert Zuidervaart, D. Vaden House, Carroll Guen Hart, Janet Catherina Wesselius & Perry Recker (2002). Philosophy as Responsibility: A Celebration of Hendrik Hart's Contribution to the Discipline. Upa.
    This festschrift collects a number of insightful essays by a group of accomplished Christian scholars, all of who have either worked with or studied under Hendrik Hart during his 35-year tenure as Senior Member in Systematic Philosophy at the Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto, Canada.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. Jacqueline A. Laing (2004). Law, Liberalism and the Common Good. In D. S. Oderberg & Chappell T. D. J. (eds.), Human Values: New Essays on Ethics and Natural Law. Palgrave Macmillan
    There is a tendency in contemporary jurisprudence to regard political authority and, more particularly, legal intervention in human affairs as having no justification unless it can be defended by what Laing calls the principle of modern liberal autonomy (MLA). According to this principle, if consenting adults want to do something, unless it does specific harm to others here and now, the law has no business intervening. Harm to the self and general harm to society can constitute no justification for legal (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  22.  3
    James G. Hart (2006). James G. Hart. Husserl Studies 22 (2):167-191.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Kevin Hart & George Aichele (2005). The Word Becomes Text: A Dialogue Between Kevin Hart and George Aichele. In Yvonne Sherwood & Kevin Hart (eds.), Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments. Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Scott J. Shapiro (2007). The "Hart-Dworkin" Debate : A Short Guide for the Perplexed. In Arthur Ripstein (ed.), Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge University Press 22--49.
    For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H.L.A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders. My purpose in this essay is not to declare an ultimate victor; (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  25.  26
    Juan Vega Gomez (2014). The Hart‐Fuller Debate. Philosophy Compass 9 (1):45-53.
    I will center the discussion of the Hart-Fuller debate on the five claims Hart mentions might be understood as legal positivisms main tenets: (1) the command theory; (2) the no necessary connection thesis; (3) the methodological claim; (4) the charge of positivism as formalism and the problem of interpretation; and (5) the meta-ethical confusion. In light of these five claims, I will explore whether the exchange of views between Hart and Fuller in 1957 truly amounted to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  31
    Steven Wall (2013). Enforcing Morality. Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (3):455-471.
    In debating Patrick Devlin, H. L. A. Hart claimed that the “modern form” of the debate over the legal enforcement of morals centered on the “significance to be attached to the historical fact that certain conduct, no matter what, is prohibited by a positive morality.” This form of the debate was politically important in 1963 in Britain and America, and it remains politically important in these countries today and elsewhere; but it is not the philosophically most (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  2
    Wibren Van der Burg (2009). Essentially Ambiguous Concepts and the Fuller-Hart-Dworkin Debate. Archiv Fuer Rechts- Und Sozialphilosphie 95 (3):305-326.
    Concepts such as law, religion or morality may refer both to a practice and to a doctrine . My thesis is that we should not regard these as separate phenomena, but as two partly incompatible models of the same phenomenon. Law, religion and morality are therefore essentially ambiguous concepts . An EAC is a concept which refers to a dynamic phenomenon that may only be described and modeled in at least two different ways that are each essentially incomplete and which (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  7
    B. Leiter (2003). Beyond the Hart/Dworkin Debate: The Methodology Problem in Jurisprudence. American Journal of Jurisprudence 48 (1):17-51.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  29. Peter Cane (ed.) (2010). The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century. Hart Pub..
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  30.  47
    Juan Vega Gomez (2011). The Hart-Fuller Debate Re-Revisited: A Review of Peter Cane (Ed), The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century. [REVIEW] Jurisprudence 2 (1):261-271.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  38
    Stephen W. Ball (1984). Bibliographical Essay / Legal Positivism, Natural Law, and the Hart/Dworkin Debate. Criminal Justice Ethics 3 (2):68-85.
  32.  6
    V. Bradley Lewis (2012). The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century. Review of Metaphysics 65 (2):411-412.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  13
    Andrew Boon Leong Phang (1990). Jurisprudential Oaks From Mythical Acorns: The Hart-Dworkin Debate Revisited. Ratio Juris 3 (3):385-398.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  2
    D. W. Skubik (1988). Positivism and Polygamy: A Hart/Devlin Redivivus. American Journal of Jurisprudence 33 (1):167-206.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  3
    Margaret Martin (2012). Cane , Peter , Ed. The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century Oxford, OR: Hart, 2010. Pp. 360. $75.00 (Cloth). Ethics 122 (4):801-806.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  54
    Heta Häyry (1992). Legal Paternalism and Legal Moralism: Devlin, Hart and Ten. Ratio Juris 5 (2):191-201.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  40
    Mark S. Nattrass (1993). Devlin, Hart, and the Proper Limits of Legal Coercion. Utilitas 5 (1):91.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  2
    B. W. Miller (2010). Morals Laws in an Age of Rights: Hart and Devlin at the Supreme Court of Canada. American Journal of Jurisprudence 55 (1):79-103.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Rodolfo Vázquez (2011). Una Versión "Debil" de la Relación Entre Derecho y Moral : Hart y la Polémica Con Fuller, Devlin y Dworkin. In Granja Castro, Dulce María & Teresa Santiago (eds.), Moral y Derecho: Doce Ensayos Filosóficos. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40. Ronald Dworkin (ed.) (1977). The Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
    Echoing the debate about the nature of law that has dominated legal philosophy for several decades, this volume includes essays on the nature of law and on law not as it is but as it should be. Wherever possible, essays have been chosen that have provoked direct responses from other legal philosophers, and in two cases these responses are included. Contributors include H.L.A. Hart, R.M. Dworkin, Lord Patrick Devlin, John Rawls, J.J. Thomson, J. Finnis, and T.M. Scanlon.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  41.  17
    Simon Lee (1986). Law and Morals: Warnock, Gillick, and Beyond. Oxford University Press.
    An examination of the relationship between law and morals, this wide-ranging book develops themes addressed by Hart and Devlin, relating them to issues and events of current interest. Lee covers such timely concerns as: the Moral Majority; embryo experiments and surrogate motherhood; contraception, children's rights, and parents' rights; informed medical consent; equality and discrimination; and freedom of expression and pornography. Stressing the relevance of these issues to the lives of all of us, Lee argues for broader participation in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  6
    Steven Lecce (2003). The Clapham Omnibus Revisited: Liberalism Against Democracy? Contemporary Political Theory 2 (1):89.
    During the 1950s and 1960s, Patrick Devlin and H.L.A. Hart engaged in a heated intellectual exchange over the bases and limits of toleration in democratic societies. By most accounts, Hart is said to have won the debate by successfully refuting Devlin's ‘disintegration thesis’ in favour of liberal principles of political morality. This article draws attention to an unnoticed but essential element in Devlin's case: an appeal to certain principles of democracy. Although Hart is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  1
    David A. Conway (1974). Law, Liberty and Indecency: David A. Conway. Philosophy 49 (188):135-147.
    The distinction between private immorality and public indecency plays a significant and perhaps a crucial role in H. L. A. Hart's argument in Law, Liberty, and Morality . This distinction, and the uses to which he puts it, have, however, been largely overshadowed in the ‘debate’ between Professor Hart and Lord Devlin which has centred around such ‘great’ questions as whether a shared morality is necessary for a society. I shall argue that (...)'s position, in so far as it is based on that distinction, is quite untenable, and that even if it were to be a possible position, it would none the less be incompatible with the sort of ‘libertarian’ view of society expressed by John Stuart Mill, whose ‘spirit’, at least, Hart believes himself to be defending. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  7
    Michael Moore (1998). Hart's Concluding Scientific Postscript. Legal Theory 4 (3):301-328.
    It has often and correctly been remarked that the Hart-Fuller debate of 1956–1969 set the agenda for Anglo-American jurisprudence in the last half of the twentieth century. The nature of law, of legal obligation, of legal authority, and of law's relation to morality were the questions that debate made central to jurisprudence as we have since practiced it.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45. Ngaire Naffine (2010). The Common Discourse of Hart and Fuller. In Peter Cane (ed.), The Hart-Fuller Debate in the Twenty-First Century. Hart Pub. 217--225.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  3
    George Schedler (1989). Does the Threat of Aids Create Difficulties for Lord Devlin's Critics? Journal of Social Philosophy 20 (3):33-45.
    Although over twenty years have passed since the Hart-Devlin exchange, the controversy over society's right to punish homosexuals remains alive, as is shown by recent concern over the spread of AIDS and the recent announcement of the Supreme Court that “majority sentiments about the morality of homosexuality” constitute an adequate justification for sodomy statutes under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Lord Devlin's moral justification for punishing homosexual conduct seems to follow a similar line of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  9
    T. Brian Mooney, A Response to Hart on Penumbra in Law: Kovesi's Account of Concept Formation.
    In a famous debate on jurisprudence held in 1958 between H. L. A. Hart and Lon Fuller, the protagonists argued about the nature of the law. On one side was H. L. A. Hart, who was a staunch defender of two ideas, first, that law was to be separated from morals, and secondly, that law as it is should be separated from law as it ought to be. These two ideas are subtly different. On the other side, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  7
    Reg Naulty (2014). Review of David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. [REVIEW] Sophia 53 (1):159-160.
    The book does not deliver on the bonding with Indian religion suggested by the title. Indian religion gets a few pages on each of being, consciousness, and bliss. The rest of the book is an all out frontal attack on naturalism, or, as Hart mostly says, ‘materialism’, on these topics. However, the book is far from being completely negative. Hart sets out a full account of his own position.He writes clearly and entertainingly, but the book is rather long, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  47
    Leslie Green (2013). Should Law Improve Morality? Criminal Law and Philosophy 7 (3):473-494.
    Lawyers and philosophers have long debated whether law should enforce social morality. This paper explores whether law should improve social morality. It explains how this might be possible, and what sort of obstacles, factual and moral, there are to doing so. It concludes with an example: our law should attempt to improve our social morality of sexual conduct.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  48
    Thomas Søbirk Petersen (2010). New Legal Moralism: Some Strengths and Challenges. [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):215-232.
    The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the plausibility of legal moralism with an emphasis on some central and recent versions. First, this paper puts forward and defends the thesis that recently developed varieties of legal moralism promoted by Robert P. George, John Kekes and Michael Moore are more plausible than Lord Devlin's traditional account. The main argument for this thesis is that in its more modern versions legal moralism is immune to some of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000