Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 5
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Giudice, Michael 2011. New Waves in Philosophy of Law.


    Priel, Dan 2011. New Waves in Philosophy of Law.


    Halpin, Andrew 2010. A Companion to Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory.


    Nobles, Richard and Schiff, David 2007. The Emperor's New Clothes. Modern Law Review, Vol. 70, Issue. 1, p. 139.


    BLANCO, VERONICA RODRIGUEZ 2006. The Methodological Problem in Legal Theory: Normative and Descriptive Jurisprudence Revisited. Ratio Juris, Vol. 19, Issue. 1, p. 26.


    ×

A DEFENCE OF HART'S SEMANTICS AS NONAMBITIOUS CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

  • Veronica Rodriguez-Blanco (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1352325203000053
  • Published online: 01 June 2003
Abstract

Two methodological claims in Hart's The Concept of Law have produced perplexity: that it is a book on “analytic jurisprudence”H.L.A Hart, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (1994). and that it may also be regarded as an essay in “descriptive sociology.”Id. Are these two ideas reconcilable? We know that mere analysis of our legal concepts cannot tell us much about their properties, that is, about the empirical aspect of law. We have learned this from philosophical criticisms of conceptual analysis; yet Hart informs us that analytic jurisprudence can be reconciled with descriptive sociology. The answer to this puzzle lies in the notion of nonambitious conceptual analysis. The theorist analyzes concepts but accepts the limitations of conceptual analysis and therefore uses empirical knowledge and substantive arguments to explain, refine, or perhaps refute initial insights provided by intuitions. This is the conclusion that this paper arrives at as an argumentative strategy to defend Hart's legal theory from the criticisms of Stavropoulos and Dworkin. The latter argues that Hart's legal theory cannot explain theoretical disagreements in law because he relies on a shared criterial semantics. Stavropoulos aims to show that Hart's semantics is committed to ambitious conceptual analysis and relies on the usage of our words as a standard of correctness. Both attacks aim to show that the semantic sting stings Hart's legal theory. This essay refines both challenges and concludes that not even in the light of the most charitable interpretation of these criticisms is Hart's legal theory stung by the semantic sting. This study defends the view that Hart's methodological claims were modest and that he was aware of the limits of conceptual analysis as a philosophical method. He was, this study claims, far ahead of his time.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Legal Theory
  • ISSN: 1352-3252
  • EISSN: 1469-8048
  • URL: /core/journals/legal-theory
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×