法律理论与机器不透明问题:斯宾诺莎论意向性、预测与法律

M. Dahlbeck
{"title":"法律理论与机器不透明问题:斯宾诺莎论意向性、预测与法律","authors":"M. Dahlbeck","doi":"10.5771/2747-5174-2021-2-50","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I will approach the problem of machine opacity in law, according to an understanding of it as a problem revolving around the underlying philosophical tension between description and prescription in law and legal theory. I will use the problem of machine opacity, and its effects on the lawmaker’s activity, as a practical backdrop for a discussion of the associations upheld by legal theory between law’s normative ideals and its preferred, normatively neutral, method for achieving these. My discussion of this problem will provide a preliminary answer to the question whether it is machine opacity - by introducing an unfamiliar kind of intentionality into the legal sphere which disturbs the predictability of law - that renders the contemporary lawmaker’s job difficult, or, whether this difficulty indeed comes with the lawmaker’s job description. I will turn to early rationalist Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and particularly his explanation of law in the Theological Political Treatise (TTP) for analytical assistance in my discussion.","PeriodicalId":377128,"journal":{"name":"Morals & Machines","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Theory and the Problem of Machine Opacity: Spinoza on Intentionality, Prediction and Law\",\"authors\":\"M. Dahlbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.5771/2747-5174-2021-2-50\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I will approach the problem of machine opacity in law, according to an understanding of it as a problem revolving around the underlying philosophical tension between description and prescription in law and legal theory. I will use the problem of machine opacity, and its effects on the lawmaker’s activity, as a practical backdrop for a discussion of the associations upheld by legal theory between law’s normative ideals and its preferred, normatively neutral, method for achieving these. My discussion of this problem will provide a preliminary answer to the question whether it is machine opacity - by introducing an unfamiliar kind of intentionality into the legal sphere which disturbs the predictability of law - that renders the contemporary lawmaker’s job difficult, or, whether this difficulty indeed comes with the lawmaker’s job description. I will turn to early rationalist Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and particularly his explanation of law in the Theological Political Treatise (TTP) for analytical assistance in my discussion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":377128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Morals & Machines\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Morals & Machines\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2021-2-50\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Morals & Machines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/2747-5174-2021-2-50","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

在本文中,我将探讨法律中的机器不透明问题,根据对它的理解,它是一个围绕法律和法律理论中描述和规定之间潜在的哲学张力的问题。我将以机器不透明的问题及其对立法者活动的影响为背景,讨论法律理论所支持的法律规范理想与实现这些理想的首选规范中立方法之间的联系。我对这个问题的讨论将为以下问题提供一个初步的答案:是机器不透明——通过将一种不熟悉的意向性引入法律领域,扰乱法律的可预测性——使当代立法者的工作变得困难,还是这种困难确实伴随着立法者的工作描述。我将转向早期理性主义者本尼迪克特·斯宾诺莎(1632-1677),特别是他在《神学政治论著》(TTP)中对法律的解释,以帮助我在讨论中进行分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal Theory and the Problem of Machine Opacity: Spinoza on Intentionality, Prediction and Law
In this paper I will approach the problem of machine opacity in law, according to an understanding of it as a problem revolving around the underlying philosophical tension between description and prescription in law and legal theory. I will use the problem of machine opacity, and its effects on the lawmaker’s activity, as a practical backdrop for a discussion of the associations upheld by legal theory between law’s normative ideals and its preferred, normatively neutral, method for achieving these. My discussion of this problem will provide a preliminary answer to the question whether it is machine opacity - by introducing an unfamiliar kind of intentionality into the legal sphere which disturbs the predictability of law - that renders the contemporary lawmaker’s job difficult, or, whether this difficulty indeed comes with the lawmaker’s job description. I will turn to early rationalist Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677) and particularly his explanation of law in the Theological Political Treatise (TTP) for analytical assistance in my discussion.
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