Rodolfo Sacco developed the idea of “mute behaviours” during his studies on mute law. The notion of “mute behaviours” denotes an action that is able to mould a legal relationship without any use of language. Certainly, this concept may give rise to some doubts in relation to the attribution—to a behaviour qualified as mute—of the capability to affect dynamics involving a plurality of people. Aiming to clarify the idea of “mute behaviours” by this point of view, the authors analysed the (...) semiotic terminology used by Sacco himself to explain this notion and the issue of its silent nature. Therefore, the terms “signifying signs” and “symptoms”, deemed by Sacco—respectively—incompatible and compatible with the theory of mute behaviours were considered. The former term was traced back to the notion of conventional and arbitrary sign, the notion of the latter was reconstructed linking it to the concept of signs based on signification and suggesting a possible framework in view of the idea of “presentative meanings” developed by the philosopher Guido Morpurgo-Tagliabue. Clarified this dichotomy by a terminological analysis, the authors noticed—as affirmed by Rodolfo Sacco himself—the impossibility to ascribe the notion of gesture to the mute behaviour’s category, as some exegetes proposed. Consequently to this last remark, the authors tried to analyse the relationship between gestures and “mute behaviours”, identifying the category of “sema-pragmatic acts”, that includes gestures and may be seen as an intermediate phase between “mute behaviours” and legally relevant behaviours operated by speaking. (shrink)

Vi sono varie forme di impossibilità normativa. Una prima forma si incontra quando un fatto naturale al quale il diritto attribuisce un significato normativo è impossibile. Una seconda consiste nell’impossibilità di un atto o fatto la quale derivi dalla presenza o assenza di una norma. Vi è poi una terza forma di impossibilità normativa che si incontra quando si afferma che da una certa realtà oggetto di normazione derivano necessariamente limiti all’attività di normazione stessa. Di una quarta forma si può (...) parlare quando ci si riferisce a un’impossibilità derivante dalle specifiche relazioni che intercorrono tra norme di un sistema normativo dinamico. Le forme di impossibilità normativa sono indagate, nei contributi raccolti in questo volume, da diverse angolazioni: la filosofia del diritto, la filosofia morale, la logica, la filosofia della conoscenza, la scienza del diritto penale. (shrink)

According to the Austrian philosopher Hans Kelsen (1881-1973), social and institutional entities are the only entities that can be null, void. The starting point of the article, The “Invalid” and the “Nothing”: At the Origins of Social Ontology, is the analysis of Hans Kelsen’s thesis. But: Why are social entities the only entities that can be null, void? In order to answer this question, in the first part of the article, the author uses two new concepts: validity-imperfection and validity-falsification. The (...) second part of the paper deals with a new ontological question: Are null (void) social entities something? (shrink)

Pragmatic Ambiguity: The Thetic Function of Modality The aim of this paper is to present an overview of the pragmatic aspects of ambiguity present in deontic sentences, which may have three pragmatic functions: a prescriptive or a descriptive or a constitutive function. This type of ambiguity is investigated on the lexical, phrasal, and sentential level. The discussion focuses on the deontic constructions of the German verb sollen and the English shall as they are used in legal texts. It also includes (...) comments on the thetic function of the Latin imperative mood and the subjunctive mood. (shrink)

This book reconsiders the supposed impossibility of deriving "Ought" from "Is". John R. Searle’s 1964 article How to Derive "Ought " from "Is’’ sent shockwaves through the philosophical community by offering a straightforward counterexample to this claim of impossibility: from your promising something- and this is an "is" - it simply follows that you "ought" to do it. This volume opens with a brand new chapter from Searle who, in light of his subsequent philosophical developments, expounds the reasons for the (...) validity of that derivation and its crucial significance for social ontology and moral philosophy. Then, in a fresh interview with the editors of this volume, Searle explores a range of topics including how his derivation relates to constitutive rules, and how he views Wittgenstein’s philosophy, deontic logic, and the rationality of action. The remainder of the volume is dedicated to a deep dive into Searle’s essay and its implications by international scholars with diverse backgrounds ranging from analytic philosophy, phenomenology, and logic, to moral philosophy and the philosophy and sociology of law. With thirteen original chapters, the contributors provide fresh and timely insights on hotly debated issues: the nature of "Ought"; the logical structure of the social world; and the possibility of deriving not only "Ought" from "Is", but "Is" from "Ought". (shrink)