Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:25:44.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

24 - Legal Positivism and Meta-Ethics

from Part V - Normativity and Values

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

By
Kevin Toh
Edited by
Torben Spaak  and
Patricia Mindus
Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Toh presents an overview of the relation between legal positivism and meta-ethical theories, arguing that philosophers of law, debating the nature of law, can gain insights from a study of meta-ethics, and that one such insight, a methodological insight, is that legal philosophers can and should follow moral philosophers and give up (what he refers to as) the double-duty presumption, that is, the presumption that theories of (the nature of) law must also give answers to the usual type of questions concerning the interpretation and application of the law.

Keywords

meta-ethicsdouble-duty presumptionacceptances of rulesVerstehenregulatives and evaluatives
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 561 - 584
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blackburn, S. 1985. ‘Errors and the Phenomenology of Value’. Reprinted in Blackburn, S.. Essays in Quasi-Realism. 1993. Oxford University Press: 149–65.Google Scholar
Boyd, R. 1988. ‘How to be a Moral Realist’. In Sayre-McCord, G. (ed.). Essays on Moral Realism. Cornell University Press: 181–228.Google Scholar
Cherniak, C. 1986. Minimal Rationality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1984. Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1981. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, D. 1989. The Intentional Stance. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1967. ‘The Model of Rules I’. In Dworkin, R.. Taking Rights Seriously. 1977. Harvard University Press: 14–45.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1986. Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1994/2017. ‘Hart’s Posthumous Reply’. Harvard Law Review 130: 2096–2130.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2011. Taking Morality Seriously. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. 2002. ‘The Varieties of Necessity’. Reprinted in Fine, K.. Modality and Tense. 2005. Clarendon Press: 235–60.Google Scholar
Finnis, J. 1980. Natural Law and Natural Rights. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Foot, P. 1958–9. ‘Moral Beliefs’. Reprinted in Foot, P.. Virtues and Vices. 1978. University of California Press: 110–31.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1981. Moral Thinking. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961/1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1966. ‘Legal Duty and Obligation’. Revised and reprinted in Hart, H. L. A.. Essays on Bentham. 1982. Clarendon Press: 127–61.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1987. ‘Comment’. In Gavison, R. (ed.). Issues in Contemporary Legal Philosophy: The Influence of H.L.A. Hart. Clarendon Press: 35–42.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. 2001. The Myth of Morality. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2009. ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreements’. University of Chicago Law Review 76: 1215–50.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1989. ‘Dispositional Theories of Value’. Reprinted in Lewis, D.. Papers in Ethics and Social Philosophy. 1999. Cambridge University Press: 68–94.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 1998. ‘Constitutive Conventions’. Revised and reprinted in Marmor, A.. Positive Law and Objective Values. 2001. Oxford University Press: 1–24.Google Scholar
Marmor, A. 2009. Social Conventions: From Language to Law. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1985. ‘Values and Secondary Qualities’. Reprinted in McDowell, J.. Mind, Value, and Reality. 1998. Harvard University Press: 131–50.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. 1903/1993. Principia Ethica. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. 2004. ‘Natural Law Theory’. In Golding, M. and Edmundson, W. (eds.). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Blackwell: 15–28.Google Scholar
Perry, S. 1987. ‘Judicial Obligation, Precedent and the Common Law’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7: 215–57.Google Scholar
Postema, G. 1982. ‘Coordination and Convention at the Foundations of Law’. Journal of Legal Studies 11: 165–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postema, G. 1986. Bentham and the Common Law Tradition. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 1997. ‘Explanations Involving Rationality’. In Earman, J. and Norton, J. (eds.). The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration. University of Pittsburgh Press: 530–70.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 2006. ‘Normative Guidance’. In Shafer-Landau, R. (ed.). Oxford Studies in Metaethics vol. 1. Oxford University Press: 1–33.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 2012. ‘That Obscure Object, Desire’. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 86: 22–46.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 2016. ‘Morality and Prospection’. In Seligman, M., Railton, P., Baumeister, R., and Sripada, C.. Homo Prospectus. Oxford University Press: 225–80.Google Scholar
Railton, P. 2019. ‘“We’ll see you in court!”: The Rule of Law as an Explanatory and Normative Kind’. In Plunkett, D., Shapiro, S., and Toh, K. (eds.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press: 1–22.Google Scholar
Raz, J 1972. ‘Legal Principles and the Limits of Law’. Yale Law Journal 81: 823–54.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. ‘Legal Reasons, Sources, and Gaps’. Reprinted in Raz, J.. The Authority of Law. 1979. Clarendon Press: 53–77.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1983. ‘The Problem About the Nature of Law’. Reprinted in Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain. 1994. Clarendon Press: 179–93.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1985. ‘Authority, Law, and Morality’. Reprinted in Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain. 1994. Clarendon Press: 194–221.Google Scholar
Seligman, M., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. and Sripada, C. 2016. Homo Prospectus. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1962. ‘Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man’. Reprinted in Sellars, W.. Science, Perception and Reality. 1963. Routledge & Kegan Paul: 1–40.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2002. ‘Law, Plans, and Practical Reason’. Legal Theory 8: 387–441.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, C. L. 1937. ‘The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms’. Mind 46: 14–31.Google Scholar
Stroud, B. 2000. The Quest for Reality: Subjectivism and the Metaphysics of Colour. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11: 75–123.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2007. ‘Raz on Detachment, Acceptance, and Describability’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27: 403–27.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2008. ‘An Argument Against the Social Fact Thesis (and Some Additional Preliminary Steps Towards a New Conception of Legal Positivism)’. Law and Philosophy 27: 445–504.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2010. ‘Some Moving Parts of Jurisprudence’. Texas Law Review 88: 1283–1321.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2011. ‘Legal Judgments as Plural Acceptances of Norms’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law 1: 107–37.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2013. ‘Jurisprudential Theories and First-Order Legal Judgments’. Philosophy Compass 8: 457–71.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2014/15. ‘Four Neglected Prescriptions of Hartian Legal Philosophy’. Law and Philosophy 33: 689–724. Republished with corrections as ‘Erratum to: Four Neglected Prescriptions of Hartian Legal Philosophy’. Law and Philosophy 34: 333–68.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2018. ‘Law, Morality, Art, the Works’. In Burazin, L., Himma, K., and Roversi, C. (eds.). Law as an Artifact. Oxford University Press: 61–85.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2019. ‘Legal Philosophy à la carte’. In Plunkett, D., Shapiro, S., and Toh, K. (eds.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press: 221–47.Google Scholar
Toh, K. (forthcoming). ‘Law and Collectivity’. In Marques, T. and Valentini, C. (eds.). Collective Action, Philosophy and the Law. Routledge.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wiggins, D. 1987. ‘Sensible Subjectivism?’. In Wiggins, D.. Needs, Values, Truth. Basil Blackwell: 185–214.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×