Because, moreover, the achievement of autonomy depends on the existence of a public culture offering a wide array of valuable pursuits, it is a common good requiring state action to realize it.
Peng-Hsiang Wang, Taipeh City Taiwan Legal rules constitute not only reasons for action, but also reasons for judicial deci- sion. What kind of reason do legal rules provide for adjudication?
Do they figure as Razian exclusionary reasons in legal reasoning? Raz distinguishes between first-order and second-order reasons. A first-order reason is a reason for action, i. A second-order reason is a reason to act for a reason The dependence thesis raz to refrain from acting for a reason.
According to Raz, an exclusionary reason is a negative second-order rea- son, i. According to Alexy, principles as well as rules generate reasons for norms, particularly for individual legal norms, i.
Principles are always prima facie reasons and rules are normally definitive reasons.
I will assume that both rules and principles generate reasons for a judge to reach a legal decision. A principle by itself cannot definitively warrant what it requires in a concrete case; it has to be weighed against other reasons to determine a particular decision.
Principles, like first-order rea- sons, have a dimension of weight or strength.
Oxford,58—9, 73— Rivers Oxford University Press: Oxford,59— Considering first-order reasons only, we have to weigh all relevant reasons in order to determine what ought to be done.
This is formulated by Raz in the practical maxim P1: The role of rules in legal reasoning resembles exclusionary reasons in practical rea- soning. According to Alexy, rules are normally definitive reasons.
A rule, if it is ap- plied, can determine a particular decision without needing to be weighed against other reasons.
Rules, as Alexy defines, contain authoritative decisions in the realm of factual and legal possibilities. As definitive reasons, rules reduce the space of reasons that we would have if rules did not exist.
If a rule is valid, the reason it generates becomes the only available one. In which way do rules reduce the space of reasons? The exclusionary character of rules becomes appar- ent in the conflicts between rules and other first-order reasons.
According to Raz, such conflicts are resolved not by weighing, but in the way that exclusionary reasons always prevail. If a principle is in conflict with a rule, so long as it falls within the scope of excluded reasons of this rule, it is always defeated by the rule, even if it is a stronger or overriding reason in the balance of first-order reasons.
Raz formulates this thesis in another practical maxim P2: As exclusionary reasons, rules may exclude very weighty rea- sons that would have tipped the balance. The exclusionary character prevents the first-order reasons generated by rules from being overridden by other stronger rea- sons.The special dependence thesis applies to them because sustaining practices are a necessary condition for it to be possible for these values to be instantiated, and the possibility of instantiation is a condition for the existence of values.
Accord- ing to Raz, the Pre-emptive Thesis follows from the Dependence Thesis as well as the Normal Justification Thesis.
According to the Dependence Thesis, authoritative directives are meant to reflect the balance of dependent reasons. The special social dependence thesis claims that some values exist only if there are (or were) social practices sustaining them.
The (general) social dependence thesis claims that, with some exceptions, [Raz] The Practice of Value. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. The Practice of Value.
Of. “dependence thesis does not claim that authorities always act for dependent reasons, but merely that they should do so”. 8 Not only does reality have “a way of falling short of the ideal,” Raz acknowledges that authorities may not even pursue this ideal. 9 He nonetheless.
May 05, · Raz is quick to point out that the dependence thesis does not entail the noJoseph Raz s Theory of Authority – SSRNJoseph Raz s theory of authority has become inﬂuential among moral, Raz, this is paired with The dependence thesis is that in order forNormal Justification Thesis Raz – Beyond the normal justification thesis: jurisdiction in.
Raz is quick to point out that the dependence thesis does not entail the no difference thesis that “the exercise of authority should make no difference to what its subjects ought to .