Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that: There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality. Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings. Laws must follow the rules of determinism.
Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that:
Rättspositivism - Wikipedia
Enligt rättspositivismen kan inte en lag vara orätt, eftersom rätt bara är en idé eller känsla som skapats genom till exempel uppfostran, eller ett instrument för makthavare att utöva makt.
Det finns olika skolor inom rättspositivismen, varav en del menar att moral existerar och andra inte gör det.
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist. Therefore - if I understand it correctly - there is no moral that the law could contradict.
After reading some wikipedia I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting... A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
In other words: there's what's legal and illegal; what's done or not done (morals); and right and wrong (ethics).
One doesn't have to believe in natural law (which is a sort of absolute standard) in order to believe that ethical behaviour exists and can be illegal.
But one can also decide that law dictates morality and there's no difference between morality and ethics. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
for expeciency reasons
I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting...
Nomic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1] Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362. Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1]
Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362.
Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist.
Thanks for clearing that out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
