The Model of Plans and the Prospects for Positivism

Ethics 125 (1):152-181 (2014)

Abstract

In Legality, Scott Shapiro builds his case for legal positivism on a simple premise: laws are plans. Recognition of that fact leads to legal positivism, Shapiro says, because the content of a plan is fixed by social facts. In this essay, I argue that Shapiro’s case for legal positivism fails. Moreover, I argue that we can learn important lessons about the prospects for positivism by attending to the ways in the argument fails. As I show, the flaws in Shapiro’s argument reveal structural problems with a family of prominent positivist views, including the one defended by Joseph Raz

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,694

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-09-19

Downloads
33 (#350,156)

6 months
1 (#388,319)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Scott Hershovitz
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work

On the (in)Significance of Hume’s Law.Samuele Chilovi & Daniel Wodak - 2022 - Philosophical Studies 179 (2):633-653.
Legality’s Law’s Empire.Nevin Johnson - 2020 - Law and Philosophy 39 (3):325-349.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Legality.Scott J. Shapiro (ed.) - 2011 - Harvard University Press.
Legal Positivism and the Moral Aim Thesis.David Plunkett - 2013 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 33 (3):563-605.
Theoretical Disagreement and the Semantic Sting.Dale Smith - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (4):635-661.
Legal Positivism.Mario Jori (ed.) - 1992 - New York University Press.
The Legacy of Positivism.Michael Singer - 2005 - Palgrave-Macmillan.
In Defense of Hart.Matthew H. Kramer - 2013 - In Wil Waluchow & Stefan Sciaraffa (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press. pp. 22.
Schmegality. [REVIEW]William A. Edmundson - 2011 - Jurisprudence 2 (1):273-291.
The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism.Kenneth M. Ehrenberg - 2011 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Dogmas and Distortions: Legal Positivism Defended.Matthew H. Kramer - 2001 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21 (4):673-701.