Attitude and the normativity of law

Law and Philosophy 36 (5):469-493 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Though legal positivism remains popular, HLA Hart’s version has fallen somewhat by the wayside. This is because, according to many, the central task of a theory of law is to explain the so-called ‘normativity of law’. Hart’s theory, it is thought, is not up to the task. Some have suggested modifying the theory accordingly. This paper argues that both Hart’s theory and the normativity of law have been misunderstood. First, a popular modification of Hart’s theory is considered and rejected. It stems from a misunderstanding of Hart and his project. Second, a new understanding of the mysterious but often-mentioned ‘normativity of law’ is presented. Once we have dispelled some misunderstandings of Hart’s view and clarified the sense in which law is supposed to be normative, we see that Hart’s view, unmodified, is well suited to the task of explaining law’s normativity.
No keywords specified (fix it)
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2017-07-17
Latest version: 2 (2017-09-18)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Two Concepts of Rules.Rawls, John & Korbut, Andrei

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
53 ( #36,039 of 44,318 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #38,116 of 44,318 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.