Propositions as (non-linguistic) objects and philosophy of law: Norms-as-propositions
Keywords:
Non-linguistic propositions, legal normativity, nonlinguistic normativity, normative propositionsAbstract
The paper distinguishes two accounts of legal normativity. One-source accounts claim there is only one source for legal normativity, which is ultimately linguistic. Two-source accounts claim legal normativity is both linguistic and non-linguistic. Two-source accounts claim we need to go beyond language and beyond propositions taken as linguistic entities, while they are one-source accounts’ main conceptual tool. Both accounts construct propositions as linguistic. There is, nevertheless, a documented analytic tradition starting with G.E. Moore that constructs propositions as non-linguistic entities. Today, the problem of the unity of proposition and structured propositions are highly debated in metaphysics. How does such debates fit into the one-source vs. two-source picture of legal normativity? Why has analytic legal philosophy failed to consider such an option concerning propositions (arguably calling descriptive sentences about norms “normative propositions” did not help)? This paper thus (I) reconstructs the argumentative dynamics between one-source and two-source accounts; (II) presents the less considered philosophical view of propositions as non-linguistic entities and (III) discusses how to include or dismiss such a philosophical view in the one-source/two-source debate on legal normativity.
References
Alchourrón, Carlos and Antonio Martino (1990), “Logic Without Truth”, Ratio Juris 3(1): 46–67.
Atienza, Miguel and Juan Ruiz Manero (2007), Las piezas del Derecho (4th ed.). Barcelona: Ariel.
Bix, Brian (2003), “Can Theories of Meaning and Reference Solve the Problem of Legal Determinacy?”, Ratio Juris 16(3): 281–295.
Bulygin, Eugenio (1982), “Norms, Normative Propositions and Legal Statements”, in Contemporary Philosophy. A New Survey. Vol III. La Haya-Boston-London: Marinus Nijhoff.
Chiassoni, Pierluigi (2007), Tecnica dell’interpretazione giuridica. Bologna: il Mulino.
Conte, Amedeo Giovanni (2007), “Norma: cinque referenti”, in Glazel, Lorenzo Passerini (ed.), Ricerche di filosofia del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli, pp. 27–35.
—. (1970), “Studio per una teoria della validità”, Rivista Internazionale Di Filosofia Del Diritto 47: 331–354.
Dworkin, Ronald (1986), Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Feis, Guglielmo and Alice Borghi, (2017), “Norms, Norms, and Norms: Validity, Existence and Referents of the Term ‘Norm’ in Alexy, Conte, and Guastin”, Phenomenology and Mind 13: 120-126.
Feis, Guglielmo and Jacobo Tagliabue (2015), “What’s New About New Realism? Mereology and the Varieties of (New) Realism”, Philosophia 43(4): 1035-1046.
Gaskin, Richard (2008), The Unity of the Proposition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guastini, Riccardo (2018), “Two Conceptions of Norms”, Revus 35.
—. (2012), “Manifesto di una filosofia analitica del diritto”, Rivista Di Filosofia Del Diritto, 1: 51–66.
—. (2011), La sintassi del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.
Jori, Mario and Anna Pintore (2015), Introduzione alla filosofia del diritto. Torino: Giappichelli.
King, Jeffrey C. (2011), “Structured Propositions”, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
—. (2007), The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leiter, Brian (2011), “The Demarcation Problem in Jurisprudence: A New Case for Scepticism”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31(4): 663–677.
Marmor, Andrei (20052). Interpretation and Legal Theory. Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing.
Marti, Genoveva and Lorena Ramírez-Ludeña (2016). “Legal Disagreements and Theories of Reference”, in Poggi, Francesca and Alessandro Capone (eds.), Pragmatics and Law. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 121–139.
McGrath, M. and D. Frank (2018), “Propositions”, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Moore, George Edward (1899), “The Nature of Judgment”, Mind 8(30): 176–193.
Moroni, Stefano and Giuseppe Lorini (2016), “Graphic Rules in Planning: A Critical Exploration of Normative Drawings Starting from Zoning Maps and Form-Based Codes”, Planning Theory 16(3): 318–338.
Neale, Stephen (1995), “The Philosophical Significance of Gödel Slingshot”, Mind 104: 761–825.
Plunkett, David and Tim Sundell (2013a), “Disagreement and the Semantics of Normative and Evaluative Terms”, Philosophers’ Imprint 13(23): 1–37.
—. (2013b), “Dworkin’s Interpretivism and the Pragmatics of Legal Disputes”, Legal Theory 19: 242–281.
Roversi, Corrado (2007), Pragmatica delle regole costitutive. Bologna: Gedit.
Scarpelli, Uberto (1959), Contributo alla semantica del linguaggio normativo. Torino: Accademia delle Scienze.
Smith, Barry (1995), “On Drawing Lines on a Map”, in. Frank, A., W. Kuhn and D. Mark (eds.), Spatial Information Theory. Berlin: Springer, pp. 475–484.
Smith, N. J. J. (2016), “A Theory of Propositions”, Logica and Logical Philosophy 25: 83–125.
Soames, Scott (1987), “Direct Reference, Propositional Attitudes, and Semantic Content”, Philosophical Topics, 15: 47–87.
Stavropoulos, Nicolas (1996), Objectivity in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Studnicki, Frederik (1970), “Traffic Signs”, Semeiotica 2(2): 151–172.
Westerhoff, Jan (2005), “Logical Relations between Pictures”, Journal of Philosophy 102(12): 603–623.
Woleński, Jan (2018), “Deontic Sentences, Possible Worlds and Norms”, Revus 34.
Żełaniec, Wojciech (2007), “Regola costitutiva”, in Glazel, L. P. (ed.), Ricerche di filosofia del diritto, pp. 36–47.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Articles published in Philosophy and Society are open-access in accordance with the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License.
