Manuscrito 43 (2):95-113 (2020)

Abstract
This paper criticises Kevin Toh’s expressivist reconstruction of H. L. A. Hart’s semantics of legal statements on the grounds that two implications of Toh’s reading are arguably too disruptive to Hart’s theory of law. The first of these implications is that legal statements are rendered indistinguishable from statements of value. The second is that the concept of a rule of recognition is rendered dispensable. I argue for the unacceptability of these consequences from a Hartian standpoint in the first two sections of this paper. The last two sections present an alternative view of Hart’s semantics of legal statements, according to which legal normativity is explained in terms of conformity to patterns of validity that by themselves neither provide objective reasons for action nor entail subjective acceptance of such reasons.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1590/0100-6045.2020.v43n2.af
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 68,944
External links

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

Reason-Giving and the Law.David Enoch - 2011 - In Leslie Green & Brian Leiter (eds.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law. Oxford University Press.
Il concetto di obbligo.H. L. A. Hart - 1966 - Rivista di Filosofia 57 (2):125-40.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Essays on Normativity and Describability of Law.Kevin Goonyoung Toh - 2003 - Dissertation, University of Michigan
The Concept of Law.Hla Hart - 1961 - Oxford University Press.
The "Hart-Dworkin" Debate : A Short Guide for the Perplexed.Scott J. Shapiro - 2007 - In Arthur Ripstein (ed.), Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge University Press. pp. 22--49.
Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory.Neil MacCormick (ed.) - 1978 - Oxford University Press.
Hart, Dworkin, Judges, and New Law.Robert J. Yanal - 1985 - The Monist 68 (3):388-402.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-07-25

Total views
3 ( #1,352,308 of 2,498,159 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #427,476 of 2,498,159 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes