Spelling suggestions: "subject:"joseph gaz"" "subject:"joseph baz""
11 |
Raz and His Critics: A Defense of Razian AuthorityCraig, Jason Thomas 15 April 2009 (has links)
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.
|
12 |
Positivism Beyond the Hartian PaleGrellette, Matthew J. 10 1900 (has links)
<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)
|
13 |
[en] TWO CLASSES OF PRACTICAL ARGUMENTS: THE PRACTICAL ARGUMENT STRUCTURE FROM THE VISION OF STEPHEN TOULMIN AND JOSEPH RAZ / [pt] DUAS CLASSES DE ARGUMENTOS PRÁTICOS: A ESTRUTURA DO ARGUMENTO PRÁTICO A PARTIR DA VISÃO DE STEPHEN TOULMIN E DE JOSEPH RAZRONALDO SOUZA DIAS 29 May 2013 (has links)
[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.
|
Page generated in 0.0271 seconds