A defence of Hart's semantics as nonambitious conceptual analysis

Two methodological claims in Hart's The Concept of Law have produced perplexity: that it is a book on “analytic jurisprudence” 1 and that it may also be regarded as an essay in “descriptive sociology.” 2 Are these two ideas reconcilable? We know that mere analysis of our legal concepts cannot tell us much about their properties, that is, about the empirical aspect of law. We have learned this from philosophical criticisms of conceptual analysis; yet Hart informs us that analytic jurisprudence can be reconciled with descriptive sociology. The answer to this puzzle lies in the notion of nonambitious conceptual analysis. The theorist analyzes concepts but accepts the limitations of conceptual analysis and therefore uses empirical knowledge and substantive arguments to explain, refine, or perhaps refute initial insights provided by intuitions. This is the conclusion that this paper arrives at as an argumentative strategy to defend Hart's legal theory from the criticisms of Stavropoulos and Dworkin. The latter argues that Hart's legal theory cannot explain theoretical disagreements in law because he relies on a shared criterial semantics. Stavropoulos aims to show that Hart's semantics is committed to ambitious conceptual analysis and relies on the usage of our words as a standard of correctness. Both attacks aim to show that the semantic sting stings Hart's legal theory. This essay refines both challenges and concludes that not even in the light of the most charitable interpretation of these criticisms is Hart's legal theory stung by the semantic sting. This study defends the view that Hart's methodological claims were modest and that he was aware of the limits of conceptual analysis as a philosophical method. He was, this study claims, far ahead of his time. 1 H.L.A Hart, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (1994). 2 Id

A psychological interpretation of Jesus

Dissertation (Ph.D.)--Boston Universit

Fairness and Cheating

We present evidence from a laboratory experiment showing that individuals who believe they were treated unfairly in an interaction with another person are more likely to cheat in a subsequent unrelated game. Specifically, subjects first participated in a dictator game. They then flipped a coin in private and reported the outcome. Subjects could increase their total payoff by cheating, i.e., lying about the outcome of the coin toss. We found that subjects were more likely to cheat in reporting the outcome of the coin flip when: 1) they received either nothing or a very small transfer from the dictator; and 2) they claimed to have been treated unfairly. This is consistent with the view that experiencing a norm violation is sufficient to justify the violation of another norm at the expense of a third party. This result extends the growing literature on social norms

Testimony, Responsibility and Recognition: A Ricoeurian Response to Crises of Sexual Abuse

How can we, as individuals and as members of religious, educational, and/ or social institutions, more adequately respond to the crises of sexual abuse that have come to light in recent years? This paper will address this question through the philosophical lens of Paul Ricoeur. The argument proposed here is that through Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of testimony, responsibility, and recognition, we can begin to approach, address, and evaluate the crises of sexual abuse we face by grounding our ethical reflections, and actions, within a more robust philosophical framework. Therefore, this paper will proceed as follows. The first three sections will investigate Ricoeur’s writings in order to glean from them three distinct hermeneutical approaches to three different sets of criteria at play in contemporary crises of sexual abuse: first, a hermeneutics of testimony, related to memory and history; second, a hermeneutics of responsibility, related to authority and justice; and, finally, a hermeneutics of recognition, related to forgiveness and forgetting. Insofar as each of these hermeneutical approaches offers us some insight into the problematics underlying crises of sexual abuse, the fourth section will offer an evaluation of these approaches by focusing on the specific case of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church. The final section will consider possible avenues for resolution of these crises through Ricoeur’s notion of exceptional “states of peace,” at the heart of which lies mutual recognition. My hope is that this contribution provides new avenues for conversation and deliberation, as well as new resources and frameworks for articulating and implementing responsible action in the face of sexual abuse

Hans Kelsen’s God and The State: The Theory of Positive Law as methodological Anarchism

Este artículo pone la obra de Hans Kelsen, God and the State, en el horizonte de God and the State de Bakunin. Esto facilita a la metodología de Kelsen el hecho de manifestarse como una delimitación del hegelianismo de izquierda de Feuerbach y su ulterior radicalización en Bakunin. La separación del derecho de Kelsen de cualquier fundamento diferente del derecho mismo prefigura la discusión sobre la relación entre derecho y vida en el estudio teórico italiano contemporáneo sobre el concepto de biopolítica. En lugar de una simple inversión del procedimiento metodológico de Kelsen, la discusión debería centrarse en la distinción entre derecho y vida, sin detenerse en la oposición entre materialidad de la vida y abstracción del derecho prefigurado en la obra de Kelsen.This article situates Hans Kelsen’s essay, God and the State, against the horizon of Bakunin’s God and the State. This enables Kelsen’s methodology to be revealed as a circumscription of Feuerbach’s Left Hegelianism and its further radicalization in Bakunin. Kelsen’s separation of law from any foundation other than in law itself prefigures the question of the relationship between law and life in contemporary Italian theoretical work on the notion of biopolitics. In place of a simple reversal of Kelsen’s methodological procedure, the question should centre upon distinguishing law from life without repeating the opposition between the materiality of life and the abstraction of law prefigured in Kelsen’s text