豆瓣

Justice in Robes 评价人数不足

读书笔记 Thirty Years On

拙小棘 2017-09-27 06:26:46

Academic defenders of legal positivism, like Coleman and Raz, remain. But their rguments, as i have tried to show, have the artificiality and strain of theories that defenders of a sacred faith construct in the face of embarrassing evidence. What is that sacred faith? The remaining positivists are not political conservatives who hope to resist the spread of individual and minority righs by insisting on a majoritarian conception of law. On the contrary, they argue that legal positivism imposes no constraints on what judges and legal officials actually do; they have traveled far from Bentham and from Erie. They celebrate positivism as an accurate description of the very concept of law or as the most illuminating theoretical description of legal phenomena over time. Sometimes they treat these as pretty much the same thing. But they offer no serious explanation of the kind of conceptual analysis they have in mind and no empirical evidence that might support large generallizations about the forms and histories of legal institutions. They make little attempt to connect their philosophy of law either to political philosophy gegenrally or to substantive legal practice, scholarship, or theory. They teach courses limited to "legal philosophy" or analytic jurisprudence in which they distinguish and compare different contemporary versions of positivism, they attend conferences dedicated to those subjects, and they comment on each other's orthodoxies and heresies in the most minute detail in their own dedicated journal.

回应(9)
• 

  Tacitus 2017-09-27 06:49:26
  哈哈哈我觉得德沃金这个用来批判Coleman恰如其分，但说Raz就有点过了哈哈哈哈，后者还是对法律的概念性研究有一个规范性基础在的，按照Liam Murphy的话说，Raz毕竟'take a normative stance' 而那个stance就是law must be capable of being the kind of authority he describes, namely the service conception of authority
• 

  Tacitus 2017-09-27 06:51:19
  毕竟德沃金核心说的是法律实证主义一种self-contained, sterilized的倾向，而拉兹其实是跨越到了道德和政治哲学的层面来解释法律了
• 

  拙小棘 2017-09-27 07:11:10
  Gardner在近似自然法里批评过德翁这篇文章，我找出德翁的看了看。在守法义务上，拉兹也同意这是道德义务，法律与道德有关联。但在什么是法律上他坚持sources而非merit。我还没认真思考Gardner的辩护是否成功，但直觉到他在区分法律与道德上有些问题。德沃金没有区分这两个问题，他觉得拉兹是在无理狡辩...
• 

  Tacitus 2017-09-27 07:47:44
  拉兹对positivism的辩护确实是挺peculiar的，但我觉得不至于无理，毕竟从authority这个角度出发，我觉得直觉上是有吸引力的。但我看Coleman的'in defense of principle'（也就是德沃金这篇书评的对象），觉得Coleman那些奇怪的argument还真的有点为了辩护而辩护的感觉。
• 

  拙小棘 2017-09-27 07:50:43
  伴随着他那本原则的实践的糟糕翻译，他已经被遗忘了....
• 

  Tacitus 2017-09-27 07:54:02
  对。。。我说的就是这本，连名字都记岔了。。。
• 

  拙小棘 2017-09-27 08:20:50
  inclusive似乎已经过气了...Marmor新文章写分离命题都没提这个区分。
• 

  Tacitus 2017-09-27 09:11:26
  其实很多学者就怀疑inclusive vs exclusive这场辩论的意义，而且其也确实旷日持久但没有什么结果，很多人都move on了
• 

  拙小棘 2017-09-27 09:12:51
  意气之争更多些。