Morality and the Nature of Law explores the conceptual relationship between morality and the criteria that determine what counts as law in a given societythe criteria of legal validity. Is it necessary condition for a legal system to include moral criteria of legal validity? Is it even possible for a legal system to have moral criteria of legal validity? The book considers the views of natural law theorists ranging from Blackstone to Dworkin and rejects them, arguing that it is not conceptually necessary that the criteria of legal validity include moral norms. Further, it rejects the exclusive positivist view, arguing instead that it is conceptually possible for the criteria of validity to include moral norms. In the process of considering such questions, this book considers Raz's views concerning the nature of authority and Shapiro's views about the guidance function of law, which have been thought to repudiate the conceptual possibility of moral criteria of legal validity. The book, then, articulates a thought experiment that shows that it is possible for a legal system to have such criteria and concludes with a chapter that argues that any legal system, like that of the United States, which affords final authority over the content of the law to judges who are fallible with respect to the requirements of morality is a legal system with purely source-based criteria of validity.

Presents a systematic, contemporary defence of the natural law outlook in ethics, politics and jurisprudence.

Does God's existence make a difference to how we explain morality? Mark C. Murphy critiques the two dominant theistic accounts of morality—natural law theory and divine command theory—and presents a novel third view. He argues that we can value natural facts about humans and their good, while keeping God at the centre of our moral explanations. The characteristic methodology of theistic ethics is to proceed by asking whether there are features of moral norms that can be adequately explained only if we hold that such norms have some sort of theistic foundation. But this methodology, fruitful as it has been, is one-sided. God and Moral Law proceeds not from the side of the moral norms, so to speak, but from the God side of things: what sort of explanatory relationship should we expect between God and moral norms given the existence of the God of orthodox theism? Mark C. Murphy asks whether the conception of God in orthodox theism as an absolutely perfect being militates in favour of a particular view of the explanation of morality by appeal to theistic facts. He puts this methodology to work and shows that, surprisingly, natural law theory and divine command theory fail to offer the sort of explanation of morality that we would expect given the existence of the God of orthodox theism. Drawing on the discussion of a structurally similar problem—that of the relationship between God and the laws of nature—Murphy articulates his new account of the relationship between God and morality, one in which facts about God and facts about nature cooperate in the explanation of moral law.

In this book, S. A. Lloyd offers a radically new interpretation of Hobbes's laws of nature, revealing them to be not egoistic precepts of personal prudence but rather moral instructions for obtaining the common good. This account of Hobbes's moral philosophy stands in contrast to both divine command and rational choice interpretations. Drawing from the core notion of reciprocity, Lloyd explains Hobbes's system of "cases in the law of nature" and situates Hobbes's moral philosophy in the broader context of his political philosophy and views on religion. Offering ingenious new arguments, Lloyd defends a reciprocity interpretation of the laws of nature through which humanity's common good is secured.

Stephen Darwall presents a series of essays that explore the view that morality is second-personal, entailing mutual accountability and the authority to address demands. He illustrates the power of the second-personal framework to illuminate a wide variety of issues in moral, political, and legal philosophy.

Petrazycki's socio-psychic orientation toward law is behavioral as well as thoughtful. He finds the most suitable methods for obtaining knowledge about legal experiences to be internal and external observation. His technique of introspection is similar to Max Weber's conceptual method. Petrazycki distinguishes between two kinds of interpretive understanding. External observation involves deriving the meaning of an act or symbolic expression from immediate observation without reference to any broader context, and internal observation involves placing the particular act in a broader context of meaning involving facts that cannot be derived from a particular act or expression. --

Contents P. Capps: Positivism in Law and International Law D. von Daniels: Is Positivism a State Centered Theory? K. E. Himma: Legal Positivism's Conventionality Thesis and the Methodology of Conceptual Analysis R. Nunan: A Modest Rehabilitation of the Separability Thesis A. Oladosu: Choosing Legal Theory on Cultural Grounds: An African Case for Legal Positivism C. Orrego: Hart's Last Legal Positivism: Morality Might Be Objective; Legality Certainly is Not M. Pavcnik: Die (Un)Produktivitat der Positivistischen Jurisprudenz M. Haase: The Hegelianism in Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law S. Papaefthymiou: The House Kelsen Built U. J. Pak: Legal Practitioners' Need of Reflective Application of Legal Philosophy in Korea U. Schmill: Jurisprudence and the Concept of Revolution D. Venema: Judicial Discretion: a Necessary Evil? J. Baker: Rights, Obligations, and Duties, and the Intersection of Law, Conventions and Morals S. Bertea: Legal Systems' Claim to Normativity and the Concept of Law J. Dalberg-Larsen: On the Relevance of Habermas and Theories of Legal Pluralism for the Study of Environmental Law A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos: A Connection of No-Connection in Luhmann and Derrida.

This advanced introduction to central questions in legal philosophy attempts to breathe new life into stalled research.

Rules perform a moral function by restating moral principles in concrete terms, so as to reduce the uncertainty, error, and controversy that result when individuals follow their own unconstrained moral judgment. Although reason dictates that we must follow rules to avoid destructive error and controversy, rules—and hence laws—are imperfect, and reason also dictates that we ought not follow them when we believe they produce the wrong result in a particular case. In The Rule of Rules Larry Alexander and Emily Sherwin examine this dilemma. Once the importance of this moral and practical conflict is acknowledged, the authors argue, authoritative rules become the central problems of jurisprudence. The inevitable gap between rules and background morality cannot be bridged, they claim, although many contemporary jurisprudential schools of thought are misguided attempts to do so. Alexander and Sherwin work through this dilemma, which lies at the heart of such ongoing jurisprudential controversies as how judges should reason in deciding cases, what effect should be given to legal precedent, and what status, if any, should be accorded to “legal principles.” In the end, their rigorous discussion sheds light on such topics as the nature of interpretation, the ancient dispute among legal theorists over natural law versus positivism, the obligation to obey law, constitutionalism, and the relation between law and coercion. Those interested in jurisprudence, legal theory, and political philosophy will benefit from the edifying discussion in The Rule of Rules.