Conceptual Norms: Contrasting Theories
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.58/2023.481Keywords:
conceptual norms, prescriptiveness, mental actions, normative systems, explanatory power of theoriesAbstract
Mainstream accounts of conceptual norms depict them as a specific kind of (sub)norms in as much as they establish a certain equivalence without making reference to an action-type, which implies also that they lack a deontic modalization. However, such non-prescriptive explanation raises some serious problems, mainly when it is assumed that the introduction of a conceptual norm into a normative system changes the content of the system. Those problems pave the way to contrast such explanation with a prescriptive alternative according to which conceptual norms are regulative in character, though with the peculiarity of addressing the mental action of qualifying something in accordance with a given equivalence. All-things-considered, from such contrast it seems to follow that the prescriptive explanation is less problematic than the non-prescriptive one.
References
Alchourrón, Carlos and Bulygin, Eugenio, 1991. “Definiciones y Normas”. Análisis Lógico y Derecho. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. 439-464.
_________, 1971. Normative Systems. Wien: Springer Verlag.
Alexy, Robert, 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arnaud, Antoine and Nicole, Pierre,1850 (1662). Logic or the Art of Thinking: Being the Port-Royal of Logic. Translated by Thomas Baynes. London: Simpkin, Marshal and Co.
Black, Max, 1964. “The Gap Between «Is» and «Should»”. The Philosophical Review. 73. 2. 165-181.
_________, 1962. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Boghossian, Paul, 1996. “Analyticity Reconsidered”. Noûs. 30. 3. 360-391.
Carcaterra, Gaetano, 2012. Presupposti e strumenti della scienza giuridica. Torino: Giappichelli.
Chiassoni, Pierluigi, 2019. Interpretation Without Truth. Cham: Springer.
Duarte, David, 2021. “From Constitutional Discretion to the Positivist Weight Formula”. Proportionality, Balancing, and Rights. Edited by Jan Sieckmann. Cham: Springer. 11-48.
__________, 2018. “The Regulativeness of Constitutive Norms”. Diritto & Questione Pubbliche. 1. 135-156.
Ferrer Beltran, Jordi, 2000. Las normas de competencia. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
Frändberg, Åke, 2018. The Legal Order. Cham: Springer.
Grabowski, Pawel, 2009. “Enactment, Provision, Norm: Reflections on the Normativeness of Provisions Regulating the Process of Legislation”. Investigationes Linguisticae. 17. 129-140.
Guastini, Riccardo, 1999. Distinguiendo. Barcelona: Gedisa.
__________, 1994. “Invalidity”. Ratio Juris. 7. 2. 212-226.
Hage, Jaap, 2018. Founding and Building Blocks of Law. The Hague: Eleven.
Hansson, Sven, 2006. “How to Define”. Princípios. 13. 5-30.
Hart, Herbert, 1994 (1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hernández Marín, Rafael, 2013. Razonamientos en la sentencia judicial. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Horty, John, 2007. Frege on Definitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, David, 1888 (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford at Clarendon Press.
Lindahl, Lars, 2017. “Legal Power: The Basic Definition”. Ratio Juris. 30. 2. 158-185.
__________, 2004. Deduction and Justification in the Law. The Role of Legal Terms and Concepts. Ratio Juris. 17. 2. 182-202.
Lycan, William, 1994. Modality and Meaning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Macagno, Fabrizio, 2010. “Definitions in Law”. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée. 199-217.
MacCormick, Neil, 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University. Press.
Mahlmann, Matthias, 2007. “Ethics, Law and the Challenge of Cognitive Science”. German Law Journal. 8. 6. 577-615
Mendonca, Daniel, 2000. Las claves del derecho. Barcelona: Gedisa.
O’Brien, Lilian, 2015. Philosophy of Action. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Orunesu, Claudina and Rodríguez, Jorge, 2022. “Reglas constitutivas y mundos constitucionalmente posibles”. Reglas constitutivas y derecho. Edición de Lorena Ramirez Ludeña y Josep Vilajosana. Madrid: Marcial Pons. 187-219.
Pap, Arthur, 1964. “Theory of Definition”. Philosophy of Science. 31.1. 49-54.
Pardo, Michael and Patterson, Dennis, 2010. “Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience”. University of Illinois Law Review. 4. 1211-1250
Peczenik, Aleksander, 2008. On Law and Reason. Cham: Springer.
Pino, Giorgio, 2016. Teoria analitica del diritto. La norma giuridica. Bologna: Edizioni ETS.
Restall, Greg, 2009. “Truth-Makers, Entailment and Necessity”. Truth and Truth-Making. Edited by E. Lowe and A. Rami. Stocksfield: Acumen Publishing Limited. 87-97.
Robinson, Richard, 1950. Definition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rodríguez, Jorge, 2021. Teoría Analítica del Derecho. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
Ross, Alf, 1968. Directives and Norms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
________, 1958a. On Law and Justice. London: Stevens & Sons Limited.
________, 1958b: “Definition in Legal Language”. Logique et Analyse. 1. 3. 139-149.
________,1957. “Tû-Tû”. Harvard Law Review. 70. 5. 812-825.
Roversi, Corrado, 2012. Costituire. Torino: Giappichelli.
Santiago Nino, Carlos, 2003. Introducción al análisis del derecho. 11ª edición. Barcelona: Ariel.
Von Wright, Georg, 1998. “Is and Ought”. Normativity and Norms. Edited by Stanley Paulson and Bonnie Paulson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 365-381.
________, 1963. Norm and Action. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Walton, Douglas, 2003. Ethical Argumentation. Oxford: Lexington Books.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Isonomía - Revista de teoría y filosofía del derecho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ITAM, the publisher, has the copyright of published articles and remaining types of publications. Publications are in open access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. That means, among other things, that authors can freely share their articles, once published in Isonomía, on their personal web pages, Academia.edu, etc.. Between formal acceptance and online publication, authors can share the final drafts of their articles. In contrast, authors must seek permission to reproduce or reprint work, and mention, in the first footnote, "previously published in Isonomía, year, n. x, pp. xx-xx"..
