Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Practical Reason, Normativity and Ethics
- Part III Law
- 10 Law as an Idea We Live By
- 11 The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View and Natural Law
- 12 The Ideal Dimension of Law
- 13 Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence
- 14 The Common Good
- 15 Natural Law Theory and Constitutionalism
- 16 Opening the Doors of Inquiry: Lon Fuller and the Natural Law Tradition
- Index
- References
11 - The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View and Natural Law
from Part III - Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Practical Reason, Normativity and Ethics
- Part III Law
- 10 Law as an Idea We Live By
- 11 The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View and Natural Law
- 12 The Ideal Dimension of Law
- 13 Two Unhappy Dilemmas for Natural Law Jurisprudence
- 14 The Common Good
- 15 Natural Law Theory and Constitutionalism
- 16 Opening the Doors of Inquiry: Lon Fuller and the Natural Law Tradition
- Index
- References
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
- The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence , pp. 275 - 313Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Works Cited
Berman, M. Forthcoming. ‘Of Law and Other Artificial Normative Systems’, in Plunkett, D., Shapiro, S. and Toh, K. (eds.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays in Jurisprudence and Metaethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2013. ‘A New Philosophy for International Law’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 41: 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, J. 2000. ‘On the Incoherence of Legal Positivism’, Notre Dame Law Review, 75: 1597–1611.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2004/2006. ‘How Facts Make Law’, Legal Theory, 10: 157–198. Corrected version reprinted in Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, Hershovitz, S. (ed.), pp. 225–264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2006. ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’, in Exploring Law’s Empire: The Jurisprudence of Ronald Dworkin, Hershovitz, S. (ed.), pp. 265–290. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2007. ‘The Prism of Rules’. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1042121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2011a. ‘The Standard Picture and Its Discontents’, Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Law, 1: 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2011b. ‘Legislation as Communication? Legal Interpretation and the Study of Linguistic Communication’, in Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law. Marmor, A. and Soames, S., eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2016a. ‘How To Explain Things With Force’, Harvard Law Review 129: 1932.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2016b. ‘Principles of Legal Interpretation,’ Available at http://philosophy.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Principles-of-Legal-Interpretation-2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2017. ‘What Makes a Method of Legal Interpretation Correct? Legal Standards vs. Fundamental Determinants,’ Harvard Law Review Forum, 130: 105.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. and Litman, H. 1998. ‘The Meaning of Original Meaning’, The Georgetown Law Journal, 86: 570–619.Google Scholar
Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law. (2nd edition.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sager, L. 1978. ‘Fair Measure: The Legal Status of Under-Enforced Constitutional Norms’. Harvard Law Review, 91: 1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sager, L. 2016, ‘Putting Law in Its Place’ in The Legacy of Ronald Dworkin, Waluchow, W. & Sciaraffa, S. (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. 1996. ‘Positivism as Pariah’, in The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism. George, R.P., ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press. 31–55.Google Scholar
Schaus, S. 2015. ‘How To Think About Law as Morality: A Comment on Greenberg and Hershovitz’, in Yale Law Journal Forum 123: 224–245. Available at: www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/how-to-think-about-law-as-morality.Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, N. 2012. ‘Obligations and the Legal Point of View’, in Marmor, A., ed., The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law (Routledge).Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, N. 2014. ‘Legal Interpretivism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Zalta, E., ed. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/law-interpretivist/.Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, N. 2016. ‘Obligations and Social Practice’ (in Spanish translation), in Ludeña, L. Ramírez and Vilajosana, J., eds., Convencionalismo y derecho (Marcial Pons 2016).Google Scholar
Stavropoulos, N. MS. ‘Do We Still Need Interpretation?’ (unpublished ms, on file with author).Google Scholar
Waldron, J. 2013. ‘Jurisprudence for Hedgehogs’. Available at: www.ssrn.com/abstract=2290309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by