Joseph Raz has developed a concept of authority based on the special relationship between reasons and action. While the view is very complex and subtle, it can be summed up by saying that authorities are authorities insofar as they can mediate between the reasons that happen to bind their subjects and the subjects’ actions. Authorities do this by providing special reasons via directives to their subjects. These special reasons are what Raz calls “protected reasons.” Protected reasons are both first-order reasons for action and second-order “exclusionary reasons” that exclude the subject from considering some reasons in the balance of reasons for or against any action. I first make clear what Raz’s view of authority is, and I then defend this view from some contemporary critics.

<p>This dissertation offers a critical analysis of the dominant philosophical theory of law today: Hartian positivism. The arguments proffered are not meant to strike at the underlying methodology of that account. Rather, they are intended to demonstrate that it performs sub-optimally with regard to its own jurisprudential aspirations. More specifically, this thesis contends that the Hartian position is unable to model the law in a way that captures the de facto terms of institutional governance, while also being able to give due theoretical credence to the normative structures and mechanisms that are widely deployed to regulate it. With this conclusion in hand, a new theory of law is suggested – one that seeks to stay true to the methods and aspirations of its predecessor, but which has been constructed so as to surpass its descriptive-explanatory capabilities. In this way, the following dissertation means to push analytic jurisprudence beyond the Hartian pale, and into new areas of theoretical discourse.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

[pt] A distinção entre argumentar a partir de regra, e argumentar quando não há regra, é retomada para elucidar alguns aspectos da atividade justificatória no âmbito legal. A referida distinção encontrou em Rawls um porta-voz que realçou de modo incisivo sua importância para a prática legal. Antes dele, porém, Hume, Mill, Ryle e Toulmin, entre outros, já haviam tecido considerações relevantes ao tema. A distinção serve de motivação para dividir o campo da argumentação prática, particularmente da argumentação jurídica, em duas classes, a saber, argumentos de primeira e de segunda ordem. Nos argumentos de segunda ordem, uma regra atua na forma descrita no modelo de Toulmin. Nos argumentos de primeira ordem, caracterizados pela ausência de regra, procede-se mediante ponderação de razões, substanciadas em princípios gerais, valores morais, interesses políticos, programas econômicos, considerações religiosas e pretensões corporativas. Alguns exemplos ilustram a distinção. Argumenta-se que a base lógica dessa distinção assenta-se no conceito de regra como razão excludente, no sentido estabelecido por Joseph Raz. / [en] The distinction between justify a conclusion from rule and justify it when no rule is resumed to elucidate some aspects of legal activity. This distinction found in Rawls a spokesman that incisively pointed out its importance for the legal practice. Before him, however, Hume (A Treatise of Human Nature), Mill (A System of Logic), Ryle (The Concept of Mind) and Toulmin (The Uses of Argument), among others, had already made relevant considerations to the topic. The distinction serves as motivation to split the field of argumentation practice, particularly of the legal argument, into two classes, namely, arguments of first and second order. In the arguments of second order, a rule operates in the manner described in the Toulmin model, in the arguments of the first order, characterized by the absence of rule, by weighting of reasons, substantiated on general principles, moral values, political interests, religious considerations and corporate claims. Some examples illustrate the distinction. It is argued that the logical basis of this distinction is based on the concept of rule as exclusionary reason, within the meaning established by Joseph Raz.