There are No Easy Counterexamples to Legal Anti-positivism
Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 17 (1) (2020)
Abstract
Legal anti-positivism is widely believed to be a general theory of law that generates far too many false negatives. If anti-positivism is true, certain rules bearing all the hallmarks of legality are not in fact legal. This impression, fostered by both positivists and anti-positivists, stems from an overly narrow conception of the kinds of moral facts that ground legal facts: roughly, facts about what is morally optimific—morally best or morally justified or morally obligatory given our social practices. A less restrictive view of the kinds of moral properties that ground legality results in a form of anti-positivism that can accommodate any legal rule consistent with positivism, including the alleged counter-examples. This form of “inclusive” anti-positivism is not just invulnerable to extensional challenges from the positivist. It is the only account that withstands extensional objections, while incorporating, on purely conceptual grounds, a large part of the content of morality into law.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
ATITAN
Upload history
Added to PP index
2019-07-02
Total views
215 ( #24,501 of 56,962 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
64 ( #10,852 of 56,962 )
2019-07-02
Total views
215 ( #24,501 of 56,962 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
64 ( #10,852 of 56,962 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.