One commendable aspect of the ruminations by H.L.A Hart on legal positivism, which quite a few contemporary philosophers of law have not fully absorbed, is that he recognised the diversity of the points of contention that have pitted the devotees of positivism against the devotees of natural-law theories. Whereas some present-day philosophers of law are inclined to refer to “the separability thesis” of legal positivism – with the definite article “the” as a signal that there is one defining point of dispute between legal positivists and their opponents – Hart knew that there is no single such thesis. Natural-law theorists have in fact postulated numerous connections between law and morality which putatively clinch the character of law as an inherently moral phenomenon, and legal positivists have posed challenges to each of those connections or to the claim that any unchallenged connection serves to establish the inherently moral character of law.

This paper first recapitulates the objections by H.L.A. Hart to the ways in which John Austin’s command model of law obfuscated the importance and the very existence of power-conferring laws. Although those objections are familiar in the world of contemporary legal philosophy, their insightfulness is highlighted here because they contrast so sharply with Hart’s own neglect of power-conferring laws at some key junctures in his theorizing. In the second half of this paper, I ponder a few of the junctures where Hart failed to heed the admonitions which he had so deftly leveled against Austin.

If there is one doctrine distinctively associated with legal positivism, it is the separability of law and morality. Both in opposition to classical natural-law thinkers and in response to more recent theorists such as Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller, positivists have endeavored to impugn any number of ostensibly necessary connections between the legal domain and the moral domain. Such is the prevailing view of legal positivism among people familiar with jurisprudence. During the past couple of decades, however, that prevailing view has come into question among some estimable legal positivists. In particular, Joseph Raz and his followers have queried the importance and the very tenability of an insistence on the separability of law and morality. The present article maintains that the traditional view of legal positivism is correct and that the recent skepticism about it on the part of some positivists is unfounded. When the notion of the disjoinability of law and morality is understood properly as a large array of theses, it proves to be resistant to the challenges that have been mounted against it.

In the course of evolving an extensive theory of natural law, John Finnis declares that certain goods are self-evident. Among these basic values, the good of knowledge lends itself to a special argument—an argument directed against people who assail the ranking of knowledge as a good. Finnis maintains that anyone who seriously denies the goodness of truth or knowledge must contradict herself flagrantly in the act of putting forth her position. Skeptics therefore exclude themselves from participating genuinely in a debate over truth’s value. Although their self-disqualification never tout seul establishes the goodness of knowledge, it “should persuade the sceptic[s] to cut short idle doubting” (NLNR at 75; see also “Scepticism” at 267). Or so Finnis believes.

In Law’s Empire, Ronald Dworkin combines his role as a legal theorist with his role as a political theorist. He sets forth a view of jurisprudence and law as modes or fields of interpretation, and he likewise propounds the notion that our current law can best be interpreted as a system pointing to the ideal of equality-of-resources. Nowhere does Dworkin’s combination of views emerge more piquantly than within his chapter entitled “The Common Law.” There Dworkin grants that much of English and American common law has had the effect of simulating markets—in other words, the effect of allocating productive forces in ways that would have come about via costless bargains among all relevant people. But he disputes the added thesis that the judicial simulation should be interpreted as the maximizing of wealth. Pitting himself against the economic approach to legal matters, Dworkin holds that we can best understand market-simulation as the achievement or pursuit of equality.

This essay maintains that the question in its title is really three sets of questions: a conceptual inquiry, a moral/political inquiry, and an empirical inquiry. After devoting some attention to the relevant conceptual issues, the essay ponders in detail the moral/political issues. It suggests some answers to the germane moral/political questions, and it takes pains to distinguish those questions from other lines of inquiry with which they might be confused. Although only animals and dead people are mentioned in the title, the essay also considers whether infants, comatose people, lunatics, future generations, groups, trees, and natural phenomena such as rivers should be classified as potential holders of legal rights.

Analyses of the social contract described by Thomas Hobbes have proceeded in three major directions. First, some readers naturally have felt that Hobbes viewed the primal charter as a genuine outcome of events which truly occurred. Other exegetes have contended that the story of the formation of the social contract was a deliberate fiction—either an artful narrative designed to elicit orderliness, or a heuristic model designed to spark hypothetical reasoning about what would have occurred in a primeval context with specified conditions. Still other analysts affirm that Hobbes used the tale of the social contract as a warning against the evils that plague a society which descends into civil strife.

In Legality Scott Shapiro seeks to provide the motivation for the development of his own elaborate account of law by undertaking a critique of H.L.A. Hart's jurisprudential theory. Hart maintained that every legal system is underlain by a rule of recognition through which officials of the system identify the norms that belong to the system as laws. Shapiro argues that Hart's remarks on the rule of recognition are confused and that his model of law—though commendably more sophisticated than any model propounded by earlier legal positivists—is consequently untenable. Shapiro contends that a new approach is vital for progress in the philosophy of law and, with his lengthy presentation of his own Planning Theory of Law, he aspires to pioneer just such an approach. Except for a very terse observation in the final main section, this article does not directly assess the strengths and shortcomings of Shapiro's piquant planning theory. Instead, I defend Hart against Shapiro's charges and thereby undermine the motivation for the development of the planning theory.

A growing number of schools have increasingly de-emphasized the importance of providing physical activity opportunities during the school day, despite emerging research that illustrates the deleterious relationship between low levels of aerobic fitness and neurocognition in children. Accordingly, a brief review of studies that link fitness-related differences in brain structure and brain function to cognitive abilities is provided herein. Overall, the extant literature suggests that childhood aerobic fitness is associated with higher levels of cognition and differences in regional brain structure and function. Indeed, it has recently been found that aerobic fitness level even predicts cognition over time. Given the paucity of work in this area, several avenues for future investigations are also highlighted. (JINS, 2011, 17, 975–985)

This study investigated underlying mechanisms of the verbal memory disorder associated with chronic alcoholism. Previous investigations have suggested that alcoholics are more vulnerable to interference effects on verbal learning and memory tasks, both with respect to retroactive interference (RI) and proactive interference (PI); this was the hypothesis of the current study. Measures of RI and build-up and release from PI were administered to 31 abstinent male chronic alcoholics and 24 healthy male nonalcoholic control subjects. Alcoholics demonstrated more sensitivity to RI than controls. Additionally, alcoholics displayed a more rapid build-up of PI, although they showed normal release. An increased interference effect was found to be a component of chronic alcoholics’ verbal memory impairment and may differentiate chronic alcoholism from other disorders affecting verbal learning and memory. (JINS, 1996, 2, 141–145.)