The Practical Otiosity of Exclusionary Reasons
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21572151 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Kenneth Einar Himma (0000-0003-2517-6937, University of Zagreb, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 457-473 |
| Publication date | 2024-08-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0841-8209 • E-ISSN: 2056-4260 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/cjlj.2024.21 |
| OpenAlex | W4404702623 |
| Language | EN |
One of Joseph Raz’s most influential contributions to legal philosophy is the Exclusionary Thesis, according to which any prescription that counts as mandatory is identical with an exclusionary reason that bars acting on certain reasons favoring noncompliance. This essay argues that exclusionary reasons are otiose in the sense there is no deliberative work they are ever needed to do under objective norms of practical reasoning
Epistemology · Exclusionary Rule · Law and economics · Political science · Sociology · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Highly cited | No |
|---|