This thesis focuses on the contemporary literature in Anglo-American analytic
jurisprudence that takes answering the question â what is law?â as the primary goal.
Agreement about what is lawâ that is, agreement about which theory of law is accurate and
adequateâ is necessary to achieve the primary goal. Theorists have come to acknowledge
that no such agreement exists due to their disagreements over two subjects: (S1) what is law
and (S2) what methodology theorists should follow to produce an accurate and adequate
theory of law. I refer to theoristsâ disagreement about S2 as the methodology conflict.
Today, theorists advance towards the primary goal in two different directions: directly or
indirectly. The direct course labors to accomplish agreement about which theory of law is
accurate and adequate. The indirect course toils to accomplish agreement about which
methodology a theory of law should satisfy to be accurate and adequate, before advancing to
the direct course. If one course is the correct or best way to achieve the primary goal, it is
imprudent for theorists to continue to work towards the same goal in separate directions.
How, then, should theorists proceed? Answering this question, loosely put, is the main
objective of this thesis. I argue that theorists must resolve the methodology conflict first to be able to
achieve the primary goal of jurisprudence (i.e., to reach a common answer to the question
â what is law?â ). I reveal that the methodology conflict poses a serious problem for theorists
working to reach an agreement about S1: namely, theorists cannot agree about which legal
theory is accurate and adequate unless they agree about which methodology a legal theory
should satisfy to be accurate and adequate. Next, I settle the methodology conflict. I show
that a particular synthesis of the current two approaches to resolve theoristsâ disagreement
about S2 â imperialism and relativismâ provides a way out of the methodology conflict. I
explain that the solution to the methodology conflict is a reasonable four-step examination
process that enables theorists to engage in meaningful debate about S1 and S2 and work
more successfully towards achieving the primary goal.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:tamu.edu/oai:repository.tamu.edu:1969.1/85953 |
| Date | 10 October 2008 |
| Creators | Bergeron, Gregory Michael |
| Contributors | Murphy, Colleen |
| Publisher | Texas A&M University |
| Source Sets | Texas A and M University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Book, Thesis, Electronic Thesis, text |
| Format | electronic, born digital |
Page generated in 0.0026 seconds