Stockholm University

English abstract: Michael Moore defends an account of scientific, mental, moral, and legal properties, according to which there are not only natural kinds, but also moral and functional kinds; and he maintains, more specifically that: 1) distinctively legal phenomena, such as legal rights, precedent, malice, etc. are functional kinds, in the sense that they have a nature that consists in the function they fulfill in law, 2) the function of a functional kind is that effect, or those effects, of the functional kind that causally contribute more than does any of its other effects to the goal of the larger system within which it occurs, and 3) functional kinds can be reduced to indefinitely large disjunctions of natural properties, 4) the relevant version of naturalism is metaphysically reductionist naturalism, and 5) functional kinds play an indispensable role in the explanation of human behaviour.

I argue, however, 1) that the method for determining the function of a (purported) functional kind proposed by Moore is too indeterminate to be able to pin down the function. I also argue 2) that it turns out to be very difficult to identify the properties that are part of the indefinitely large disjunction of natural properties which, on Moore’s analysis, is identical to a functional kind, 3) that functional kinds cannot be part of the best explanation of human behaviour, because they lack nomological unity, and that they lack such unity because they are necessarily multiply realizable, and 4) that Moore will therefore have to give up: a) the view that functional kinds are identical to indefinitely large disjunctions of natural properties, b) the view that functional kinds are part of the best explanation of human behaviour, or both (a and b). I also argue 5) that the idea of a functional kind should not play a central role in any theory of law or legal reasoning.

Keywords: functional kinds, naturalism, realism, conventionalism, causal theory of meaning, nihilism, skepticism

Language: English

Published: Number 2(27)/2021, pp. 83-107.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2021.2.83

Download: Download
Number of downloads: 446

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.

University of Wrocław

English abstract: The aim of the paper is to establish a theoretical elaboration of objectivity in law which would conform exiting linguistic practices in the legal field. It starts from a brief characterization of legal practice in this respect which allows for an exposure of semantic complexity of the term ‘objectivity’ in law. The term is said to take two basic meanings: objectivity as a fact and objectivity as a moral ideal. On this ground requirements towards a reliable theory of legal objectivity are defined: such a theory should not only make o room for both distinct meanings of legal objectivity, but also should consider their mutual relations. These requirements stemming from existing linguistic practice serve as criteria for examination of up to date theoretical concepts of objectivity. The paper discusses realistic, conventionalist, and idealistic theories of objectivity in law subsequently and exposes shortcomings of each of these. Eventually, key assumptions of an institutional theory of objectivity are presented which is claimed to offer a plausible understanding of objectivity in law in both its factual and ideal aspects.

Keywords: objectivity, institutional theory, realism, conventionalism, idealism

Language: Polish

Published: Number 2(9)/2014, pp. 108-124

Download: Download

Number of downloads: 21

Jagiellonian University

English abstract: In the theoretical legal literature there are views that consistently want to combine natural kinds with semantics of legal language (M. Moore, D. Brink, N. Stavropoulos). The motivation for creating such a theories is the desire to get the semantics of the legal language to be realistic. This semantics should enable the formulation of an objective theory of legal determination. Very often, the obvious objection to such theories is that the legal terms do not correspond to any objects in the world. The purpose of this article is to examine these ideas and attempt to show that the nature of the legal terms directly shows the impossibility of building an objective discourse for such terms (where objectivity is understood as objectivity in the scientific sense). Regardless, such theories can be formulated and treated as objective but the objectivity of those theories will come from methods of construction of the objects and not from their nature.

Keywords: natural kinds, essentialism, legal theory, realism

Language: Polish

Received: 02.10.2016
Accepted: 13.11.2016

Published: Number 1(14)/2017, pp. 66-73.

Download file: Download

Number of downloads: 362