Moral Cognitivism and Legal Positivism in Habermas’s and Kant's Philosophy of Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2017v16n3p533Resumo
The hypothesis of this paper is that legal positivism depends on the non plausibility of strong moral cognitivism because of the non necessary connection thesis between law and morality that legal positivism is supposed to acknowledge. The paper concludes that only when based on strong moral cognitivism is it consistent to sustain the typical non-positivistic thesis of the necessary connection between law and morality. Habermas’s Philosophy of law is confronted with both positions.
Referências
Alexy, Robert. 1993. “Justification and Application of Norms”. Ratio Juris. Vol. 6 nº. 2.
Alexy, Robert. 2002. The Argument from Injustice. A Reply to Legal Positivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002
Apel, Karl-Otto; Oliveira, Manfredo Araújo de; Moreira, Luiz. 2004. Com Habermas, contra Habermas: direito, discurso e democracia. São Paulo: Landy.
Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. I-II, q. 95, r. 4.
Bobbio, Norberto. 1992. A era dos direitos. 11. ed., Rio de Janeiro: Campus.
Brink, David O. 1989. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dworkin, Ronald. 1977. Taking Rights Seriously. London: Duckworth.
Ely, John Hart. 1980.Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Endicott, Timothy A. O. 2000. Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Günther, Klaus. 1993. The Sense of Appropriateness: application discourses in morality and law. New York: SUNY.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2007. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. On Law and Disagreement. Some Comments on “Interpretative Pluralism”. Ratio Juris. V. 16, N. 2, 2003, p. 187–94
Hart, H. L. A. 1958. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals”. Harvard Law Review. N. 71.
Hart, H. L. A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Heck, José N. 2006. Razão prática: uma questão de palavras? A controvérsia Habermas/Kant sobre moral e direito. Kant e-prints. Campinas: Série 2, v. 1, n.1, p. 19-30.
Hedrick, Todd. 2010. Rawls and Habermas: Reason, Pluralism, and the Claims of Political Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Kant, Immanuel. 1996. Practical philosophy. [Transl. Mary Gregor]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelsen, Hans. 1991. Teoria pura do direito. 3. ed., São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Kelsen, Hans. 2000. Teoria geral do direito e do Estado. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Kelsen, Hans. 2005. Pure Theory of Law. Klark: Lawbook Exchange.
Kettner, Matthias. 2002. The Disappearance of Discourse Ethics in Habermas’s Between Facts and Norms. In Baynes, Kenneth; Schomberg, René von. Essays on Habermas´s “Between Facts and Norms”. Albany: SUNY, p. 201-218.
Mahoney, Jon. 2001. Rights without Dignity? Some Critical Reflections on Habermas’s Procedural Model of Law and Democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism. V. 27, n. 3.
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice. [Revised Edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Raz, Joseph. 1990. Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs. Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 3-46.
Raz, Joseph. Human Rights without Foundations. In BESSON, Samantha, TASIOULAS, John (eds.). The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 321-338.
Saint Augustin. 1952. De libero arbitrio. [Oeuvres de Saint Augustin; VI. Dialogues Philosophiques; ed. F. J. Thonnard]. 2. ed., Paris: Desclée.
Shapiro, Scott J. 2007. The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed. [Michigan Law School] Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series. Working Paper No. 77.
Stevenson, Charles Leslie. 1937. “The Emotive Meaning of Ethical Terms”. Mind. Vol. 46, No. 181.
Volpato Dutra, Delamar José. 2010. Apel versus Habermas: como dissolver a ética discursiva para salvaguardá-la juridicamente. Kriterion. V. 51, p. 103-116.
Volpato Dutra, Delamar José. 2013. “Positivismo jurídico inclusivo e positivismo jurídico exclusivo”. In BUENO, Roberto (Org.). Racionalidade, justiça e direito: ensaios em filosofia do Direito. Uberlândia: EDUFU.
Weber, Max. (n. d.)Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Tübingen: Mohr.
Waldron, Jeremy. Kant's Legal Positivism. Harvard Law Review. N. 109, 1995-1996, p. 1535-1566.
Waldron, Jeremy. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
This obra is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional
