Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:32:19.324Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Directives and Practical Reasons by Noam Gur

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2020

Luigi Lonardo
Luigi Lonardo*
Affiliation:
Luigi Lonardo, visiting Lecturer at King’s College London and SciencesPo Paris. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , August 2020 , pp. 493 - 499
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020

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.)

Footnotes

*

Noam Gur, Legal Directives and Practical Reasons (Oxford University Press, 2019) pp. 240 [ISBN 978-0-199-65987-6]. All in-text references are to this book.

References

1. I will discuss this more in the section below.

2. Joseph Raz, The Morality of Freedom (Clarendon Press, 1986) at 46.

3. Gur states that the book will concern itself with “factors that speak in favour of the action” not with “the motivation or consideration that made a difference to how the agent acted.” (8)

4. Jon Elster, Explaining Social Behaviour, 2d ed (Cambridge University Press, 2015) at 70.

5. Ibid .

6. The line immediately after the quotation bears no relevance to this second claim, and I have indeed discussed it with relation to the first claim.

7. The book also addresses two counter-objections to its critique of the exclusionary theory. Perhaps the law that is being disobeyed was not a legitimate authority (the no-authority reply, Chapter 3); or perhaps the reasons for disobedience were not impacted by the law (the scope-of-exclusion reply, Chapter 4).

8. See below for a discussion of the dispositional model.

9. Raz, supra note 2 at 53.

10. For a similar criticism see Elster, supra note 4 at 27.