[lit-ideas] Re: The Philosophy of Law
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 07:50:18 +0000 (UTC)
>Hart did see Pilcher, but wasn't convinced by it.>
May we take it that this is just a joke? If not, where is the evidence?
Dnl
On Thursday, 5 March 2015, 18:47, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My last post today!
In a message dated 3/5/2015 10:29:21 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: "It's nice to learn that Grice had cats, but did
they
appreciate his implicatures ? For example, "Kitty is poor but honest" ? Or
"Tom, have you stopped beating Kitty"?"
Of course the reference to [THIS PHILOSOPHER I LIKE A LOT] and cats had to
do with the idea of 'rules'. [THIS PHILOSOPHER I LIKE A LOT] did not like
rules ['stuffy' -- cf. 'live and let live' -- "pinko"], except when applied
to cricket. His obituary read, "Professional philosopher and amateur
cricketer". Yet he refers to this _rule_ in an Oxford college -- and recall
that
when Hart felt that he did not have anything else to offer to Jurisprudence
he resigned from the chair, moved to London for a while, and went back to
the dreaming spires as Master of Brasenose. So think Brasenose.
The rule, primary rule, reads:
i. Dogs are forbidden in this college.
Surely we need a recognition rule.
ii. (i) is mandatory.
This strengthens the 'obligatoriness' of (i). It is not merely
iii. It is a habit of the college that nobody has a dog.
So, when the Master acquired a dog, everybody was sort of over-reacting.
The Governing Body met, and it was decided:
iv. The master's dog is a cat.
[THIS PHILOSOPHER I LIKE A LOT] does not find anything paradoxical about
that. "We do a lot of deeming all of the time -- if not as charming as in the
Oxonian case."
Hart was never so severe with rules. Because he has not just a meta-rule of
recognition (which IMPLICATES that you can REFUSE to recognise rule R1 as
a primary rule). And you have a meta-rule of change. The college could have
changed (i) into (i') Dogs are no longer forbidden in this college.
Finally, the third type of meta-rule Hart talks about is 'adjudication' rule
("Why should a rule forbidding dogs apply here? The master never said his pet
was a dog dog").
And so on.
Apparently, some problems in legal philosophy were not adequately solved by
a Hartian analysis but by a Popperian one that appeals to W3.3 -- vide
Pilcher. Hart did see Pilcher, but wasn't convinced by it.
But, to use one of Hart's favourite adverbs here, one has to examine stuff
*carefully* (Hart's example: "My wife drives the car carefully, and she is
especially carefully when PARKING it -- reverse").
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts: