Studia Humana 7 (3):31-38 (2018)

Abstract
Efficient thinking is the foundation of efficient operation. The correct definition of concepts, especially the basic ones for a given field, in order to reach the truth, is a condition for the development of science and its social utility. The Petrażycki’s research methodology of law is a thoroughly modern method, as it enables effective examination of the accuracy of contemporary legal theories created after Petrażycki’s input. A model contemporary theory susceptible to an examination through the research methodology of law by Petrażycki is the normative theory of legal rules and non-legal standards by Dworkin. For this purpose some falsifications will be subject, i.e. selected ad hoc among many others, two important theories of normative law theory Dworkin. The first one is the thesis classifying legal norms into two groups of norms, namely legal rules and non-legal standards. The second one is a thesis about the existence of who are capable of discovering and issuing lawful and, at the same time, fair court decisions, which are also the only ones for resolving particular court disputes. Unfortunately, owing to the seemingly cognitive research methodology of Petrażycki, both Dworkin’s deformed division of legal norms as well as Dworkin’s Hercules judges - cannot stand the test of authenticity. Due to the Petrażycki’s methodology, the legal-normative theory of Dworkin does not lose an innovative outlook on the existence of social norms, which are being discovered by judges in the jurisprudence, indifferently to the doubts over their proper classification. Moreover, Dworkin’s theory is placed between naive theories, regardless of whether they are considered realistically naive theories or nihilistically naive theories A few random reflections on the well-known work of Dworkin with the help of Petrażycki’s methodology serve to provide a new perspective on the contemporary legal normativity.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.2478/sh-2018-0016
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: 63,404
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism: Dworkin and Hegel on Legal Theory.Thom Brooks - 2007 - Georgia State University Law Review 23 (3):513-60.
Why The Axioms and Theorems of Arithmetic Are Not Legal Norms.Matthew H. Kramer - 2007 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (3):555-562.
Dworkin on the Value of Integrity.Jonathan Crowe - 2007 - Deakin Law Review 12:167.
Dworkin on the Semantics of Legal and Political Concepts.Dennis M. Patterson - 2006 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 26 (3):545-557.
Trouble in Law's Empire: Rethinking Dworkin's Third Theory of Law.Kenneth Einar Himma - 2003 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 23 (3):345-377.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-11-10

Total views
7 ( #1,038,232 of 2,449,019 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #442,577 of 2,449,019 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes