Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Interpretation and Obligation: Foundations of Canadian Law 2009

Foundations of Canadian Law 2009, week 9
by

Desmond Manderson

on 15 August 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Interpretation and Obligation: Foundations of Canadian Law 2009

Interpretation and Obligation HLA Hart:
"Separation..." Lon Fuller
"Fidelity" Concepts:
Obliged v. obligation
Primary v secondary rules

Is v. ought
Core v. penumbra Examples:
'no vehicles in the park'
'The US President must be 35'
the mushroom case (Ontario) Quotes: "if we are to communicate with each other at all...then the general words we use (like vehicle in the example I consider must have some standard instance in which no doubts are felt about its application... There must be a core of setlted meaning but there will be as well a penumbra of debatable cases (607) "We say to our neighbour 'you ought not to lie and that may certainly be a moral judgment, but we should remember that the baffled poisoner says, 'I ought to have given her a second dose." (613) Concepts:
Penumbra AND core
Is AND ought

The circle and the line
Interpretation, norms, and 'fidelity to law' Examples:
The jeep in the park
Wittgenstein Quotes: "law cannnot be built on law" “On the one hand, we have an amoral datum called law, which has the peculiar quality of creating a moral duty to obey it. On the other hand, we have a moral duty to do what we think is right and decent. But this is like saying I have to choose between giving food to a starving man & being mimsy with the borogoves.” (656) The Morality of Law: Gesetz als gesetz
Is positivism morally good or morally evil?

The case of the Nazi informer
theory v practice
reading v context
yes/no v a matter of degree Hart - the outsider's view: we have an obligation because we 'know what law is'
Fuller - the insider's view: we have an obligation because we 'help build what law ought to be'
Full transcript