Abstract
AbstractContra recent, inflationary views, the paper submits a deflationary approach to legal ontology. It argues, in particular, that to answer ontological questions about legal entities, we only need conceptual analysis and empirical investigation. In developing this proposal, it follows Amie Thomasson’s ‘easy ontology’ and her strategy for answering whether ordinary objects exist. The purpose of this is to advance a theory that, on the one hand, does not fall prey to sceptical views about legal reality (viz., that ontological truths about legal entities are established by metaphysical principles); and, on the other, is compatible with common-sense jurisprudence (viz., that there in fact exist legal entities, and they all have important practical implications). While this methodology is common to legal philosophers interested in elucidating the ‘artifactual nature’ of law, the paper departs from their projects by taking a step forward in connecting this deflationary approach to legal ontology with an expressivist account of legal discourse, thus providing enough resources to satisfy the general ambition of jurisprudence, viz., to establish the conditions for the analysis of legal reality and its normative character.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. Belleri, D. (2017). Verbalism and metalinguistic negotiation in ontological disputes. Philosophical Studies, 174, 2211–2226.
2. Bix, B. (1995). Conceptual questions and Jurisprudence. Legal Theory, 1(4), 465–479.
3. Bix, B. (2003). Raz on Necessity. Law and Philosophy, 22(6), 537–559.
4. Burazin, L. (2018). Legal systems as Abstract Institutional Artifacts. In L. Burazin, et al. (Eds.), Law as an artifact (pp. 112–135). Oxford University Press.
5. Dickson, J. (2001). Evaluation and legal theory. Oxford University Press.