Jose Juan Moreso

En esta contribución intentaré mostrar que el criterio lex superior derogat legi inferiori conduce a una consecuencia que, al menos en lo que conozco, no ha sido todavía advertida. Si las normas de la máxima jerarquía de un sistema jurídico, verbigracia, normas constitucionales constituyen un conjunto consistente, entonces necesariamente el sistema jurídico es consistente. Dicho de otra manera, lex superior preserva necesariamente la consistencia. Si las normas del nivel más alto son miembros de un conjunto consistente, los niveles inferiores de la jerarquía no podrían admitir normas contradictorias con las superiores. Más aún, habida cuenta que de una contradicción se sigue cualquier norma, en virtud del principio lógico ex falso quodlibet, de dos normas contradictorias que pertenecen a algún nivel inferior se derivan algunas normas en contradicción con normas del nivel superior; así normas contradictorias no podrían ser admitidas en los niveles inferiores. In this contribution, I shall intend to show that the criterion lex superior derogat legi inferiori has a consequence which, as far as I know, has not been noted yet: if the higherlevel norms in a legal system, i.e. constitutional norms, configure a consistent set, then necessarily the legal system is consistent. Lex superior preserves necessarily the consistency, as it were. If higher-level norms are members of a consistent set, then the lower-levels could admit no norm in contradiction with the higher-level norms. Moreover, given that from a contradiction follows anything, in virtue of the logical principle ex falso quodlibet, from two contradictory lower-level norms follow some norms in contradiction with norms of the higher-level, thus contradictory norms could never be admit in the lower-levels

Algunos de los más relevantes filósofos del derecho de los últimos años, como Carlos S. Nino y Ronald Dworkin, han defendido que hay una pluralidad de conceptos de Derecho. Scott Shapiro ha sostenido una posición especialmente relevante acerca de ello: la palabra ‘Derecho’ es sistemáticamente ambigua, pues a veces designa un conjunto de normas y otras veces una organización social. Esta es precisamente la tesis criticada en el trabajo. Se argumenta, basándose en determinada literatura filosófica acerca de los conceptos, que los conceptos de objetos sociales de carácter intencional contienen una dimensión social y una dimensión significativa, normativa en el caso del derecho. El mismo concepto de Derecho expresa una dimensión social y una normativa imbricadas entre sí. Some of the most relevant legal philosophers in the last decades, as Carlos S. Nino and Ronald Dworkin, have defended the idea that there is a plurality of concepts of law. Scott Shapiro has sustained this account in a particularly relevant way: the word ‘law’ displays a ubiquitous ambiguity, sometimes designates a set of norms and other a social organization. This is precisely the thesis which is criticized in the paper. It is argued, from a certain philosophical literature about the concepts, that concepts of social objects of intentional character contain a social dimension and a meaning dimension, normative in the case of the law. That is to say, the concept of law expresses a social dimension and a normative dimension intertwined

In his influential paper Legal Reasons, Sources and Gaps' reprinted in The Authority of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), Raz says that legal gaps only exist when law speaks with uncertain voice or when it speaks with many voices, but there are no gaps when law is silent. In this later case, rules of closure, which are analytically true, prevent from the occurrence of gaps. According to Raz, if there is a gap in a legal system, then both the claim that there is a conclusive legal reason to perform a certain action, and its negation are neither true nor false. Therefore, one of the Raz's most important contributions to the solution of the problem of legal gaps is to remark that legal discourse is not altogether governed by the principle of bivalence. However, philosophers often claim that the denial of bivalence leads to a logical inconsistency. If this claim were true, then Raz's solution to the problem of gaps would be seriously threatened. In this paper we show ‐ with the aid of a sophisticated analytical tool, i.e. von Wright's Truth Logic ‐ that the rejection of bivalence only commits us to accept the trivial conclusion that propositions can lack truth‐values. For this reason, Raz's paper can still be regarded as a good starting‐point for analyzing the relationships among norms, practical reasoning and legal gaps. However, we also show that in order to admit propositions which are neither true nor false, Raz's theses must be reformulated. Otherwise, the claim that there is no gap when law is silent would not be compatible with the rejection of bivalence.

In his article on pre-conventions, Celano presents, what the author calls, the Ontological Commitment Thesis and the Normative Bite Thesis. In this short comment, the author argues that the two theses are together both incompatible with the idea that pre-conventions are facts which have causal powers in human behaviour; also, if the ontological thesis is abandoned, normative determination could not be obtained. In other terms, the author argues that either pre-conventions are part of our causal explanation of human behaviour or pre-conventions are abstract entities able to determine human behaviour normatively. In the first case, pre-conventions lack normative meaning, while in the second pre-conventions cannot integrate our causal explanation of human actions. Tertium non datur.

This paper deals with the question of the conflict of constitutional rights with regard to basic rights. Two extreme accounts are outlined: the subsumptive approach and the particularistic approach, that embody two main conceptions of practical rationality. Between the two approaches there is room for a range of options, two of which are examined: the proportionalist approach, which conserves the scope of rights restricting their stringency, and the specificationist approach, which preserves the stringency of rights restricting their scope. I will present arguments in defence of the latter

The author discusses a question related to a certain aspect of justification of legal decisions, often so-called internal justification-a legal decision is internally justified if and only if it can be deduced from the norm(s) applicable to the case, and from the statement(s) describing the facts of the case. According to this notion, infinite irrelevant logical consequences are justified. To avoid this counterintuitive conclusion, the author analyzes three notions of relevance: Sperber-Wilson's notion, Anderson-Belnap's notion, and Schurz's notion. The author presents a reconstruction of the notion of relevance very close to Schurz's notion, extended to make it suitable to the particular characteristics of deontic logic. Finally, this notion of relevance is used to discuss some aspects of the concept of normative system, conceived as a deductive system, that is, a system containing all its logical consequences.

This paper intends to show that it is possible to take convincingly into account the platitudes which underlie our moral practice. It deals with the articulation of an indirect strategy to answer the arguments of moral scepticism: if we can generate a conceptual space that takes such platitudes into account, perhaps we could ignore the sceptic doubts.Several metaethical conceptions can ecumenically carry out this task. Particularly, even if moral realism implies cognitivism and objectivism, moral objectivism –the plausibility of rational agreement in morals- does presuppose necessarily neither realism nor cognitivism.An argument against moral relativism is also presented. It is argued that there are several ways of pluralism compatible with the very field of moral objectivity.The conclusion maintains that only an objectivist account of our moral practice is apt to make sense of our institutional designs that acknowledge universal human rights

This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. It does this by looking to other spheres in which faultless disagreement appears to be possible, mainly in matters of taste and ethics. Three possible accounts are explored: the realist account, the relativist account, and the expressivist account. The paper tries to show that in the case of legal disagreements, there is a place for an approach that can take into account our intuitions in the sense that legal disagreements are genuine and at times faultless.