Legal Theory 17 (3):67-73 (2011)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
This article addresses the question of whether judges can take the internal point of view towardtheir legal system's rule of recognition for purely prudential reasons. It takes a fresh look at an underappreciated conceptual argument of Joseph Raz's that answers: no. In a nutshell, Raz argues that purely prudential reasons are reasons of the wrong kind for judges to accept their legal system's rule of recognition. And should Raz's argument succeed, an important necessary connection between law and morality would be established
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
DOI | 10.1017/s1352325211000127 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
View all 11 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
Detached Statements.Mark McBride - 2018 - Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía 49 (147):75-89.
Similar books and articles
Positivism and the Internal Point of View.Richard Holton - 1998 - Law and Philosophy 17 (s 5-6):597-625.
The Anarchist Official: A Problem for Legal Positivism.Kenneth M. Ehrenberg - 2011 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 36:89-112.
Hart and Raz on the Non-Instrumental Moral Value of the Rule of Law: A Reconsideration. [REVIEW]Mark J. Bennett - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (5):603-635.
An Epistemic Account of the Internal Point of View.Antony Hatzistavrou - 2007 - In Michael Freeman & Ross Harrison (eds.), Law and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2011-07-29
Total views
39 ( #288,556 of 2,497,996 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,301 of 2,497,996 )
2011-07-29
Total views
39 ( #288,556 of 2,497,996 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #428,301 of 2,497,996 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads