Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- 27 Gustav Radbruch’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 28 Good Order and Workable Arrangements: Lon Fuller’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 29 Dworkin’s Critique of Hart’s Positivism
- 30 Tracing Finnis’s Criticism of Hart’s Internal Point of View: Instability and the ‘Point’ of Human Action in Law
- 31 Alexy’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 32 Mark Greenberg on Legal Positivism
- 33 Positivism and Totalitarianism
- Index
- References
32 - Mark Greenberg on Legal Positivism
from Part VI - Critique
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Fundamentals
- Part II History
- Part III Central Figures
- Part IV Main Tenets
- Part V Normativity and Values
- Part VI Critique
- 27 Gustav Radbruch’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 28 Good Order and Workable Arrangements: Lon Fuller’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 29 Dworkin’s Critique of Hart’s Positivism
- 30 Tracing Finnis’s Criticism of Hart’s Internal Point of View: Instability and the ‘Point’ of Human Action in Law
- 31 Alexy’s Critique of Legal Positivism
- 32 Mark Greenberg on Legal Positivism
- 33 Positivism and Totalitarianism
- Index
- References
Summary
Baum Levenbook explores another criticism made against legal positivism. As she explains, Mark Greenberg objects to legal positivism, first, that it is a mistake to hold that legal facts are determined solely by social facts and, second, that the content of authoritative pronouncements, such as statutes, is determined by their linguistic content. But, she points out, Greenberg’s first objection is premised on the mistaken assumption that the nature of law requires the connection between legal facts and the determinants of legal facts to be, as Greenberg puts it, ‘rationally intelligible’, and the second objection is based on the equally unwarranted assumption that it is part of the nature of law to operate in such a way as to ensure that legal obligations are genuinely binding.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Legal Positivism , pp. 742 - 763Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bix, B. 2014. ‘When Law Becomes Morality: Comments on Mark Greenberg’s Moral Impact Theory of Law’. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2434075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2006. ‘Hartian Positivism and Normative Facts: How Facts Make Law II’. In Hershovitz, S. (ed.). Exploring Law’s Empire. Oxford University Press: 265–90.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2011. ‘The Standard Picture and Its Discontents’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, vol. 1. Oxford University Press: 39–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2014. ‘The Moral Impact Theory of Law’. Yale Law Journal 123: 1288–1342.Google Scholar
Greenberg, M. 2017. ‘The Moral Impact Theory, the Dependence View, and Natural Law’. In Duke, G. and George, R. (eds.). Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Jurisprudence. Cambridge University Press: 275–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, B. 2009. ‘Explaining Theoretical Disagreement’. University of Chicago Law Review 76: 1215–50.Google Scholar
Leiter, B. 2014. ‘Some Questions and Doubts about Greenberg’s “Moral Impact Theory of Law”’. https://leiterreports.typepad.com/brianleiterlaw/2014/05/some-questions-and-doubts-about-greenbergs-moral-impact-theory-of-law.html.Google Scholar
Levenbook, B. B. 2013. ‘How to Hold the Social Fact Thesis: A Reply to Greenberg and Toh’. In Green, L. and Leiter, B. (eds.). Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, vol. 2. Oxford University Press: 75–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levenbook, B. B. 2015. ‘Dworkin’s Theoretical Disagreement Argument’. Philosophy Compass 10: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, J. 1979. ‘Legal Positivism and the Source of Law’. In Raz, J.. The Authority of Law. Oxford University Press: 37–52.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2009a. ‘On the Nature of Law’. In Raz, J.. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 91–125.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2009b. ‘Intention in Interpretation’. In Raz, J.. Between Authority and Interpretation. Oxford University Press: 265–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. 2016. ‘North Carolina Is No Longer Classified as a Democracy’. New Observer. www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article122593759.html.Google Scholar
Reynolds, A. 2018. ‘North Carolina’s Democracy Was Bad at the Start of 2017. A Year Later It’s Much Worse’. New Observer. www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article198165644.html.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1991. ‘Reply to Aune’. Wilfrid F. Sellars Papers. Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Archives and Special Collections, University of Pittsburgh Library System: 1–19.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2007. ‘The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed’. In Ripstein, A. (ed.). Ronald Dworkin. Cambridge University Press: 22–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. J. 2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar