Morality and Law

Ratio Juris 2 (1):55-65 (1989)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The controversy over law and morality between positivists and normativists is largely a result of failure on both sides to understand the idea of authority. The author argues that Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Hobbes held a common notion of legal authority that was distinctively moral. They all saw the virtue of law (and the source of legal obligation) in the equal protection it provides for all against the disorder to which passion makes men vulnerable, and not in the justice of its provisions. Michael Oakeshott, among contemporary theorists, best illustrates this approach to a resolution of the differences between positivists and normativists.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,139

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
2010-09-11

Downloads
29 (#507,265)

6 months
3 (#760,965)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Oakeshott's Porcupines: Oakeshott on Civility.Peter Johnson - 2007 - Contemporary Political Theory 6 (3):312-329.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Leviathan.Thomas Hobbes - 1651 - Harmondsworth,: Penguin Books. Edited by C. B. Macpherson.
Law and Marxism: a general theory.Evgeniĭ Bronislavovich Pashukanis - 1978 - London: Ink Links. Edited by C. J. Arthur.
On History and Other Essays.William H. Dray - 1985 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 47 (3):534-535.
The Dialogues of Plato.Wm Hammond & B. Jowett - 1893 - Clarendon Press.
The Dialogues of Plato.Wm Hammond & B. Jowett - 1893 - Philosophical Review 2 (4):466.

View all 7 references / Add more references