In this book Joseph Raz develops his views on some of the central questions in practical philosophy: legal, political, and moral. The book provides an overview of Raz's work on jurisprudence and the nature of law in the context of broader questions in the philosophy of practical reason. The book opens with a discussion of methodological issues, focusing on understanding the nature of jurisprudence. It asks how the nature of law can be explained, and how the success of a legal theory can be established. The book then addresses central questions on the nature of law, its relation to morality, the nature and justification of authority, and the nature of legal reasoning. It explains how legitimate law, while being a branch of applied morality, is also a relatively autonomous system, which has the potential to bridge moral differences among its subjects. Raz offers responses to some critical reactions to his theory of authority, adumbrating, and modifying the theory to meet some of them. The final part of the book brings together for the first time Raz's work on the nature of interpretation in law and the humanities. It includes a new essay explaining interpretive pluralism and the possibility of interpretive innovation. Taken together, the essays in the volume offer a valuable introduction for students coming for the first time to Raz's work in the philosophy of law, and an original contribution to many of the current debates in practical philosophy.

Aus dem Inhalt: A. Aarnio: One Right Answer and the Majority Principle - H. Aoi: Fikentschers Theorie der Fallnorm - J. A. G. Amado: Justicia, Democracia y Validez del Derecho en J. Habermas - O. Ballweg: Phronesis versus Practical Philosophy - J. Bengoetxea: Legal System as a Regulative Ideal - N. Brieskorn: Die Kantische Maxime und die richterliche Rechtsanwendung - D. Buchwald: Rational Legal Justification - E. Bulygin: On Legal Interpretation - N. MacCormick and J. Wroblewski: On Justification and Interpretation - U. Dopfer: Ontologie der sozialen Rolle als Grundlage strafrechtlicher Entscheidungen - V. Frosini: Prolegomena zur Auslegung des Rechts - A. Gangel: Rechtsprechung, Rechtsanwendung und Vernunftsgebrauch - M. P. Golding: Substantive Interpretation in Common Law Elaboration - M. van Hoecke: The Use of Unwritten Legal Principles by Courts - H.-R. Horn: Are there Several Theories of Legal Argumentation? - R. Kevelson: The Confusion of Language in Legal Thought - F. Lachmayer: Visualisierung in der Rechtswissenschaft - P. J. van Niekerk: The Relevance of the Distinction between Legal Principles and Legal Rules - M. Pavcnik: "Rechtsanwendung" oder normative Konkretisierung des Gesetzes? - A. Peczenik: Why shall Legal Reasoning be Coherent? - K. Pleszka: Empirisches Wissen als Grundlage der teleologischen Interpretation - u.a.

This book investigates law's interaction with practical reasons. What difference can legal requirements-e.g. traffic rules, tax laws, or work safety regulations-make to normative reasons relevant to our action? Do they give reasons for action that should be weighed among all other reasons? Or can they, instead, exclude and take the place of some other reasons? The book critically examines some of the existing answers and puts forward an alternative understanding of law's interaction with practical reasons. At the outset, two competing positions are pitted against each other: Joseph Raz's view that (legitimate) legal authorities have pre-emptive force, namely that they give reasons for action that exclude some other reasons; and an antithesis, according to which law-making institutions (even those that meet prerequisites of legitimacy) can at most provide us with reasons that compete in weight with opposing reasons for action. These two positions are examined from several perspectives, such as justified disobedience cases, law's conduct-guiding function in contexts of bounded rationality, and the phenomenology associated with authority. It is found that, although each of the above positions offers insight into the conundrum at hand, both suffer from significant flaws. These observations form the basis on which an alternative position is put forward and defended. According to this position, the existence of a reasonably just and well-functioning legal system constitutes a reason that fits neither into a model of ordinary reasons for action nor into a pre-emptive paradigm-it constitutes a reason to adopt an (overridable) disposition that inclines its possessor towards compliance with the system's requirements.

Aus dem Inhalt: > I. Plenarvotrage: R. Alexy: Eine diskurstheoretische Konzeption der praktischen Vernunft u O. Weinberger: Der Streit um die praktische Vernunft u II. Offentlicher Vortrag: M. Kriele: Zur Universalitat der Menschenrechte u III. Arbeitsgruppenreferate: J. M. Adeodato: Practical Regularities in Underdeveloped Countries u J. L. Bazan / R. Madrid: Racionalidad y Razonabilidad en el Derecho u V. Black: Putting Power in its Place u J. de Sousa e Brito: Praktische Vernunft und Utilitarismus u A. G. Conte: Deontisch vs. anankastisch u W. Eichhorn: Uber eine verfehlte und doch unverzichtbare Idee der praktischen Vernunft u U. Fazis: Theorie und Ideologie der Postmoderne u F. Galindo: La Teoriaa de los Sistemas Sociales como Teoriaa de la Practica Juriadica u G. den Hartogh: Authority and the Balance of Reasons u V. Held. Feminist Morality and the Role of Law u F. Jacobs: Das Paradigma der praktischen Unvernunft u H. Kaptein: The Morals of Post-Modern Human Rights u J. Llompart: Die praktische Vernunft praktisch betrachtet: die Argumentation mit der Menschenwurde u C. W. Maris: Horror Vacui and the Problems of Modern Legal Philsophy u R. Martin: On G. H. von Wright's Theory of Practical Inference u K. A. Papageorgiou: Kant, ein Rechtsmoralist? Ein Blick auf seine angewandte Ethik u u.a. (Franz Steiner 1993)

This is the first book-length study in English of Kant's legal metaphors, whose philosophical importance has so far been overlooked. It will appeal to academic researchers and advanced students of Kant, early modern philosophy, legal philosophy, and intellectual history.

Practical Reason and Norms focuses on three problems: In what way are rules normative, and how do they differ from ordinary reasons? What makes normative systems systematic? What distinguishes legal systems, and in what consists their normativity? All three questions are answered by taking reasons as the basic normative concept, and showing the distinctive role reasons have in every case, thus paving the way to a unified account of normativity. Rules are a structure of reasons to perform the required act and an exclusionary reason not to follow some competing reasons. Exclusionary reasons are explained, and used to unlock the secrets of orders, promises, and decisions as well as rules. Games are used to exemplify normative systems. Inevitably, the analysis extends to some aspects of normative discourse, which is truth-apt, but with a diminished assertoric force.

We are obsessed with watching television shows and feature films about lawyers, reading legal thrillers, and following real-life trials. Yet, at the same time, most of us don't trust lawyers and hold them and the legal system in very low esteem. In The Myth of Moral Justice, law professor and novelist Thane Rosenbaum suggests that this paradox stems from the fact that citizens and the courts are at odds when it comes to their definitions of justice. With a lawyer's expertise and a novelist's sensability, Rosenbaum tackles complicated philosophical questions about our longing for moral justice. He also takes a critical look at what our legal system does to the spirits of those who must come before the law, along with those who practice within it.