Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:56:59.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - The Semantic Thesis in Legal Positivism

from Part IV - Main Tenets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2021

Torben Spaak
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Patricia Mindus
Affiliation:
Uppsala Universitet, Sweden
Get access

Summary

Green considers a strong version of the semantic thesis, according to which legal statements are descriptive statements solely about social facts. He starts from the foundational thesis of positivism, the social thesis, which has it that the existence and content of the law are ultimately based solely in social facts about a community. But he notes that there are two versions of this thesis. Under the reduction version, a legal system and its laws consist of social facts. Under the assignment version, they are not social entities at all; they are norms, understood as abstract objects. But the grounds for assigning these abstract objects to a community are ultimately solely social facts. Focusing on the assignment version, he asks whether the semantic thesis follows from the social thesis, and, if that answer is no, the extent to which legal statements actually conform to the semantic thesis. He argues that assignment positivists can conclude that the answer is negative because, for them, legal statements describe abstract objects. For Green, this simple account of the semantics of legal statements is superior to expressivist accounts and to Raz’s account.

Type
Chapter
Information
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. 1984. Spreading the Word: Groundings in the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boghossian, P. A. 1989. ‘The Rule-Following Considerations’. Mind 98: 507–49.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. 2011. ‘Legal Statements and Normative Language’. Law and Philosophy 30: 167–99.Google Scholar
Duarte d’Almeida, L. 2016. ‘The Grounds of Law’. In Waluchow, W. and Sciaraffa, S. (eds.). The Legacy of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford University Press: 165202.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. and Toh, K. 2013. ‘Legal as a Thick Concept’. In Waluchow, W. and Sciaraffa, S. (eds.). Philosophical Foundations of the Nature of Law. Oxford University Press: 257–78.Google Scholar
Finlay, S. and Plunkett, D. 2018. ‘Quasi-expressivism about Statements of Law: A Hartian Theory’. In Gardner, J., Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law vol. 3. Oxford University Press: 4986.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. 1972. Logic Matters. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbard, A. 1990. Wise Choices, Apt Feelings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2005. ‘Legal Realism as Theory of Law’. William and Mary Law Review 46: 19152000.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2011. ‘Leiter on the Legal Realists’. Law and Philosophy 30: 381418.Google Scholar
Green, M. S. 2013. ‘On Hart’s Category Mistake’. Legal Theory 19: 347–69.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1982. Essays on Bentham: Studies in Jurisprudence and Political Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1983. Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, M. H. 2018. H.L.A. Hart. Polity Press.Google Scholar
McPherson, T. 2011. Against Quietist Normative Realism. Philosophical Studies 154: 223–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, R. 2018a. ‘Detachment and Deontic Language in Law’. Law and Philosophy 37: 351–84.Google Scholar
Mullins, R. 2018b. ‘Legal Positivism and Deontic Detachment’. Ratio Juris 31: 48.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1980. The Concept of a Legal System. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1984. ‘Hart on Moral Rights and Legal Duties’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4: 123–31.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1994. Ethics in the Public Domain. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1998. ‘Purity of the Pure Theory’. In Paulson, S. L. and Paulson, B. L. (eds.). Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes. Oxford University Press: 237–52.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1999. Practical Reasons and Norms. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2004. ‘Incorporation by Law’. Legal Theory 10: 117.Google Scholar
Schiffer, S. 1993. ‘Actual-Language Relations’. Philosophical Perspectives 7: 231–58.Google Scholar
Sciaraffa, S. 2011. ‘The Ineliminability of Hartian Social Rules’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31: 603–23.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 2009. ‘What Is the Rule of Recognition (and Does It Exist)?’. In Adler, M. D. and Himma, K. E. (eds.). The Rule of Recognition and the U.S. Constitution. Oxford University Press: 227–46.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. J. 2011. Legality. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Silk, A. 2019. ‘Normativity in Language and Law’. In Plunkett, D., Shapiro, S. and Toh, K. (eds.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press: 287314.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. C. 1999. Context and Content. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Toh, K. 2005. ‘Hart’s Expressivism and His Benthamite Project’. Legal Theory 11: 75123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toh, K. 2007. ‘Raz on Detachment, Acceptance, and Describability’. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27: 403–27.Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J. 1994. Inclusive Legal Positivism. Oxford University Press.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
×