V - Dissenting Opinions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Law and MindA Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences, pp. 471 - 472Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
References
Audi, P. (2012). Grounding: Toward a Theory of the In-Virtue-of Relation. The Journal of Philosophy 112, 685–93.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (1996). The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. J. (2010). The Character of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chilovi, S., & Pavlakos, G. (2019). Law-Determination as Grounding: A Common Grounding Framework for Jurisprudence. Legal Theory 25, 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correia, F., & Schnieder, B. (eds.) (2012). Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2018). Normativity and Concepts. In Star, D. (ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 989–1014.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. (2006a). Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II. In Hershovitz, 2006, pp. 267–90.Google Scholar
Hattiangadi, A. (2007). Oughts and Thoughts: Rule-Following and the Normativity of Content. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heidemann, C. (2013). Facets of ‘Ought’ in Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law. Jurisprudence 4, 246–62.Google Scholar
Hershovitz, S. (ed.) (2006). Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1928). Die Philosophischen Grundlagen der Naturrechtslehre und des Rechtspositivismus. Berlin: Pan Verlag.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1967). Pure Theory of Law. 2nd German ed., translated by Knight, Max. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1992). Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory. 1st German ed., translated by Paulson, B. and Paulson, S.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1993). Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, J. (1983). Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 64, 354–61.Google Scholar
Pavlakos, G. (2019). Kelsenian Imputation and the Explanation of Legal Norms. Revus 37, 47–56.Google Scholar
Plunkett, D. (2012). A Positivist Route for Explaining How Facts Make Law. Legal Theory 18, 139–207.Google Scholar
Rosen, G. (2010). Metaphysical Dependence: Grounding and Reduction. In Hale, B. & Hoffmann, A. (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic and Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–36.Google Scholar
Schaffer, J. (2016). Grounding in the Image of Causation. Philosophical Studies 173, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations, ed Anscombe, G. E. M. & Rhees, R.. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
References
Bentham, J. (1988 [1776]). A Fragment on Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1996[1789]). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, eds. Burns, J. H. & Hart, H. L. A. with an Introduction by Rosen., F. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (2010). Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence, ed. Schofield, P.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berker, S. (2009). The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience. Philosophy & Public Affairs 37(4), 293–329.Google Scholar
Celano, B. (1994). Dialettica della giustificazione pratica. Saggio sulla legge di Hume, Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
Chiassoni, P. (2019). Interpretation without Truth: A Realistic Enquiry, Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Gonzáles Lagier, D. (2017). A la sombra de Hume. Un balance crítico del intento de la neuroética de fundamentar la moral. Madrid, Barcelona and Buenos Aires: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Green, J., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgement. Science 293(14), 2105–2108.Google Scholar
Kelsen, H. (1945). General Theory of Law and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Libet, B. Gleason, C. A., Wright, E. W., & Pearl, D. K. (1983). Time of Conscious Intention to Act in Relation to Onset of Cerebral Activity (Readiness Potential): The Unconscious Initiation of a Freely Voluntary Act. Brain 106, 623–42.Google Scholar
Moriarty, J. C. (2016). Seeing Voices: Potential Neuroscience Contributions to a Reconstruction of Legal Insanity. Fordham Law Review 85, 599–618.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S., & Patterson, D. (2016). The Promise of Neuroscience for Law: ‘Overclaiming’ in Jurisprudence, Morality, and Economics. In Pardo, M. S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Law and Neuroscience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, A. N. (1960). The Autonomy of Ethics. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 38, 199–206.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2001). Rationality in Action. Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
References
Alexy, R. (1991). Theorie der juristischen Argumentation. Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung, 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Bocheński, J. M. (1993). Logika i filozofia (Logic and Philosophy). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Brożek, A., Brożek, B., & Stelmach, J. (2013). Fenomen normatywności (The Phenomenon of Normativity). Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2018a). Epistemologia prawnicza z perspektywy nauk kognitywnych (Legal Epistemology from the Perspective of Cognitive Science). In Brożek, B., Kurek, Ł & Stelmach, J. (eds.), Prawo i nauki kognitywne (Law and Cognitive Science). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 73–99.Google Scholar
Brożek, B. (2018b). Umysł prawniczy (The Legal Mind). Kraków: Copernicus Center Press.Google Scholar
Kirchmann, J. H. v. (1848). Die Werthlosigkeit der Jurisprudenz als Wissenschaft. Berlin: Verlag Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Opałek, K. (1985). Argumenty za nielingwistyczną koncepcją normy: Uwagi dyskusyjne (Arguments in Favour of a Nonlinguistic Conception of Norms: A Discussion). Studia Prawnicze 3–4, 203ff.Google Scholar
Opałek, K., & Woleński, J. (1988). Logika i interpretacja powinności (Logic and the Interpretation of Obligation). Krakowskie Studia Prawnicze XXI, 13–30.Google Scholar
Perelman, Ch. (1963). The Idea of Justice and the Problem Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1992). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Savigny, E. v. (1976). Juristische Dogmatik und Wissenschaftstheorie. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (1991). Die hermeneutische Auffassung der Rechtsphilosophie. Ebelsbach: Verlag Rolf Gremer.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (1994). Współczesna filozofia interpretacji prawniczej (Contemporary Philosophy of Legal Interpretation). Monographs of the Faculty of Law and Administration of Jagiellonian University. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2006). Die Grenzen der juristischen Erkenntnis. In Dauner-Lieb, B., Hommelhoff, P., Jacobs, M., Kaiser, D. & Weber, Ch (eds.), Festschrift für Horst Konzen zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2011a). And If There Is No Ought? In Stelmach, J. & Brożek, B. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Law: The Normativity of Law. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2011b). Interpretacja bez granic (Limitless Interpretation). Forum Prawnicze 2 (4), 13–18.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2012). The Naturalistic and Antinaturalistic Fallacy in Normative Discourse. In Stelmach, J., Brożek, B., & Hohol, M. (eds.), The Many Faces of Normativity. Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 137–44.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2013a). O problemie prawdziwości norm inaczej (The Problem of the Truthfulness of Norms in Another Way). In Brożek, A., Brożek, B. & Stelmach (eds.), J., Fenomen normatywności (The Phenomenon of Normativity). Kraków: Copernicus Center Press, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2013b). Positivistische Mythen der juristischen Methode. Augsburger Rechtsstudien 75, 21.Google Scholar
Stelmach, J. (2018). Co może zaoferować neuroscience nauce prawa i praktyce prawniczej? (What Can Neuroscience Offer Legal Science and Practice?). In Brożek, B., Kurek, Ł & Stelmach, J. (eds.), Prawo i nauki kognitywne (Law and Cognitive Science). Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 160–6.Google Scholar