This paper has a two‐pronged thesis. First, laws should be understood as making factual claims about the moral order. Second, the truth or falsity of these claims depends as much on the content of the law as on whether the lawmaker has political authority. In particular, laws produced by legitimate authorities are successful as laws when they guide subjects' behavior by giving subjects authoritative reasons for action. This paper argues that laws produced by legitimate authorities accomplish this task (i) by (...) being on their own sufficient to change the moral state of affairs, which (ii) thereby generates for people new moral reasons to act that they can read right off of the legislation. (shrink)

Scott Shapiro, a prominent defender of exclusive legal positivism—exclusivism—has intriguingly (re)introduced a logical principle, the endorsement and rejection of which he (I take it) supposes can helpfully distinguish exclusivism from its contrary, inclusive legal positivism—inclusivism. It is an intriguing thought that principles pitched at such a high level of abstraction as this could distinguish between the two versions of positivism. My aim will be to test whether this principle—and associated principles—can do such distinguishing work.

This paper centers upon the issue, within the project of analytic jurisprudence, of how to construe the status of the legal activities of a state when there is a disjuncture between a nation's formal legal commitments, such as those stated within a bill or charter of rights, and the way in which its officials actually engage in the practice of law, i.e., legislation and adjudication. Although there are two positions within contemporary legal theory which focus directly on this issue (Inclusive (...) and Exclusive Legal Positivism), neither is able to offer an acceptable descriptive-explanatory account of the variety of legal activities at play within such situations. Thus, tensions between legal formality and practice, existent in many legal systems today, can be used to delineate a theoretical gap in regard to our understanding of law. This paper serves to acknowledge that point, and suggests a possible constructive solution to the positivists' descriptive-explanatory problem. Furthermore, in taking seriously the gap between the normative orientation of a legal system and its de facto practice, this paper also suggests other areas within analytic jurisprudence that might be meaningfully informed by that issue. (shrink)

Joseph Raz’s theory of authority has become influential among moral, political, and legal philosophers. This article will provide an overview and accessible explanation of the theory, guiding those coming to it for the first time as to its theoretical ambitions within the wider issues of authority, and through its intricacies. I first situate the theory among philosophical examinations of authority, and then explain the theory itself in detail.

Scott Shapiro, an exclusive legal positivist, argues that inclusive legal positivism is inconsistent with the view that legal norms must conceptually provide reasons for agents of a legal system to act in specified ways. I defend inclusive legal positivism from Shapiro's charge of inconsistency.

El profesor Juan Carlos Bayón ha sostenido que el positivismo incluyente resultaría inaceptable por apoyarse en la idea de una convención social de seguir criterios no convencionales: si hubiera acuerdo sobre el contenido de esos criterios, ellos resultarían convencionales, y sin acuerdo, no habría práctica social convergente y, por ende, no habría en realidad una regla convencional. Así, el positivismo incluyente quedaría enfrentado a un dilema: o bien resulta indistinguible del positivismo excluyente, o bien no es una postura convencionalista en (...) absoluto. Este trabajo evaluará la posibilidad de una salida al dilema. Para ello, se efectuará un análisis de las diversas versiones del positivismo incluyente y sus límites a la luz de la objeción planteada. También se intentará demostrar la viabilidad de un contraargumento centrado en los alcances de la tesis de la convencionalidad, que bloquearía la acusación de inconsistencia teórica esgrimida en su contra. Professor Juan Carlos Bayón has argued that Inclusive Legal Positivism should be rejected because its plausibility depends on the idea of a social convention to follow nonconventional criteria of validity. In his view, if there were agreement on the content of these criteria, it would be impossible to sustain its non-conventional character; and without agreement, there would not be a common social practice, and thus no social rule would exist. Therefore, Inclusive Positivism faces a dilemma: being indistinguishable from Exclusive Positivism or not being a genuine form of conventionalism at all. This article evaluates a possible way out of this dilemma. It explores the different versions of Inclusive Legal Positivism and its limits, and tries to build an opposing argument grounded on the scope of the conventionality thesis that would rescue Inclusive Legal Positivism from the accusation of theoretical inconsistency. (shrink)