权威、有效性的道德标准和概念混淆

K. Himma
{"title":"权威、有效性的道德标准和概念混淆","authors":"K. Himma","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter challenges the Identification Thesis. The Identification Thesis considers our conceptual practices with respect to the term ‘authority’ and states that they entail that an institutional normative system cannot be legitimate unless it is conceptually possible for a subject to determine what its norms require without having to decide themselves what they ought to do. If our conceptual practices with respect to using the terms ‘law’ and ‘authority’ are determined by what competent speakers typically believe and say about law and authority, then those ordinary linguistic practices allow for the possibility of a legitimate legal system with moral criteria of validity. Our conceptual practices are thus inconsistent with the Identification Thesis. As the Identification Thesis expresses the core of the service conception of authority, the service conception is inconsistent with the concept of authority as it is defined by our conceptual practices.","PeriodicalId":272702,"journal":{"name":"Morality and the Nature of Law","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Authority, Moral Criteria of Validity, and Conceptual Confusion\",\"authors\":\"K. Himma\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter challenges the Identification Thesis. The Identification Thesis considers our conceptual practices with respect to the term ‘authority’ and states that they entail that an institutional normative system cannot be legitimate unless it is conceptually possible for a subject to determine what its norms require without having to decide themselves what they ought to do. If our conceptual practices with respect to using the terms ‘law’ and ‘authority’ are determined by what competent speakers typically believe and say about law and authority, then those ordinary linguistic practices allow for the possibility of a legitimate legal system with moral criteria of validity. Our conceptual practices are thus inconsistent with the Identification Thesis. As the Identification Thesis expresses the core of the service conception of authority, the service conception is inconsistent with the concept of authority as it is defined by our conceptual practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":272702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morality and the Nature of Law\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morality and the Nature of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morality and the Nature of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198723479.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章对认同论题提出了挑战。认同论题考虑了我们与“权威”一词相关的概念实践,并指出,它们意味着,除非主体在概念上有可能确定其规范需要什么,而不必决定自己应该做什么,否则一个制度规范体系就不可能是合法的。如果我们关于使用“法律”和“权威”这两个术语的概念实践是由有能力的说话者对法律和权威的典型信仰和说法决定的,那么这些普通的语言实践就允许了一种具有有效性道德标准的合法法律体系的可能性。因此,我们的概念实践与认同论题不一致。认同论题所表达的是权威服务概念的核心,服务概念与权威概念是不一致的,因为它是我们的概念实践所定义的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Authority, Moral Criteria of Validity, and Conceptual Confusion
This chapter challenges the Identification Thesis. The Identification Thesis considers our conceptual practices with respect to the term ‘authority’ and states that they entail that an institutional normative system cannot be legitimate unless it is conceptually possible for a subject to determine what its norms require without having to decide themselves what they ought to do. If our conceptual practices with respect to using the terms ‘law’ and ‘authority’ are determined by what competent speakers typically believe and say about law and authority, then those ordinary linguistic practices allow for the possibility of a legitimate legal system with moral criteria of validity. Our conceptual practices are thus inconsistent with the Identification Thesis. As the Identification Thesis expresses the core of the service conception of authority, the service conception is inconsistent with the concept of authority as it is defined by our conceptual practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信