Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Institutionalized ReasonThe Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Matthias Klatt

Print publication date: 2012

Print ISBN-13: 9780199582068

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582068.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2017. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 20 August 2017

A ‘Justified Normativity’ Thesis in Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law?

A ‘Justified Normativity’ Thesis in Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law?

Rejoinders to Robert Alexy and Joseph Raz

Chapter:
(p.61) 4 A ‘Justified Normativity’ Thesis in Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law?
Source:
Institutionalized Reason
Author(s):

Stanley L. Paulson

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199582068.003.0004

This chapter explores the justified normativity thesis in Kelsen's legal philosophy, with particular attention to the works of Raz and Alexy. It raises doubts about whether anything as ambitious as justified normativity can be attributed to Kelsen. Some of these doubts are philosophical, others are prompted by a reading of Kelsen's texts. The philosophical doubts stem from the problems associated with transcendental arguments. That is, the appropriate argument on behalf of justified normativity in Kelsen's legal philosophy is a Kantian or Neokantian transcendental argument, which proves, however, to be unworkable. And textual support in Kelsen's writings is scant for the attribution to him of a justified — or contentual — normativity thesis. This cannot come as a surprise. From the very beginning, Kelsen was of the opinion that psychologism and naturalism, prominent in fin de siècle legal science on the European continent, were utterly wrong-headed. He sought to provide an alternative, and it took the form of a normativity thesis — what might be termed the nomological normativity thesis — that is altogether different from the justified normativity thesis. It does precisely the work that Kelsen would have it do, providing an alternative to psychologism and naturalism.

Keywords:   legal philosophy, justified normativity, Joseph Raz, Robert Alexy, transcendental argument, naturalism, psychologism

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .