Joseph Raz

(? - 2022)

The book offers a penetrating examination of a set of fundamental questions about human thought and action. In these essays, Joseph Raz examines the nature of normativity, reason, and the will; the justification of reason; and the objectivity of value. He argues for the centrality, but also demonstrates the limits of reason in action and belief. He suggests that our life is most truly our own when our various emotions, hopes, desires, intentions, and actions are guided by reason. He explores the universality of value and of principles of reason on one side and their dependence on social practices on the other side, and their susceptibility to change and improvement. He concludes with an illuminating explanation of self‐interest and its relation to impersonal values, in general, and to morality, in particular.

Legitimate authority -- The claims of law -- Legal positivism and the sources of law -- Legal reasons, sources, and gaps -- The identity of legal systems -- The institutional nature of law -- Kelsen's theory of the basic norm -- Legal validity -- The functions of law -- Law and value in adjudication -- The rule of law and its virtue -- The obligation to obey the law -- Respect for law -- A right to dissent? : civil disobedience -- A right to dissent? : conscientious objection -- The purity of the pure theory -- The argument from justice, or how not to reply to legal positivism.

Practical Reason and Norms focuses on three problems: In what way are rules normative, and how do they differ from ordinary reasons? What makes normative systems systematic? What distinguishes legal systems, and in what consists their normativity? All three questions are answered by taking reasons as the basic normative concept, and showing the distinctive role reasons have in every case, thus paving the way to a unified account of normativity. Rules are a structure of reasons to perform the required act and an exclusionary reason not to follow some competing reasons. Exclusionary reasons are explained, and used to unlock the secrets of orders, promises, and decisions as well as rules. Games are used to exemplify normative systems. Inevitably, the analysis extends to some aspects of normative discourse, which is truth-apt, but with a diminished assertoric force.

The question 'Why should I obey the law?' introduces a contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A. Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the greater number of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived

An examination of Williams account of agent-regret leads to its supplementation, and to an explanation of why we are attached to, and responsible for, some of our actions even when we do not control them, by relating our attachments to the emerging sense of who we are. These reflections lead to showing (a) that the control principle of responsibility reaches further than is often assumes, e.g. to establish responsibility for some beliefs and emotions, and (b) that we are responsible for actions regarding which the control principle does not apply. The chapter defends a rational functioning principle of responsibility. It concludes with some observations about how these conclusion bear on the question of blameworthiness which follow in Williams's footsteps.

The focus of this article is not only the main concerns regarding constitutionalism and specifically the problem of the authority of constitutions and the interpretation of constitutions, with a special emphasis on the authority of the authors of constitutions, the study also deals with the interesting issue of the scope and nature of theories on constitutionalism.Resumen:En este artículo se aborda no sólo la discusión en torno al tema de la autoridad de las Constituciones y la problemática de la interpretación constitucional, en donde particularmente se estudian los argumentos referentes a la autoridad de los autores de la Constitución. Además, el estudio adelanta argumentos importantes para entender el alcance y la naturaleza de las teorías que abordan los temas del constitucionalismo.

Using the accounts of Gewirth and Griffin as examples, the article criticises accounts of human rights as those are understood in human rights practices, which regard them as rights all human beings have in virtue of their humanity. Instead it suggests that (with Rawls) human rights set the limits to the sovereignty of the state, but criticises Rawls conflation of sovereignty with legitimate authority. The resulting conception takes human rights, like other rights, to be contingent on social conditions, and in particular on the nature of the international system.

Practical Reason and Norms focuses on three problems: In what way are rules normative, and how do they differ from ordinary reasons? What makes normative systems systematic? What distinguishes legal systems, and in what consists their normativity? All three questions are answered by taking reasons as the basic normative concept, and showing the distinctive role reasons have in every case, thus paving the way to a unified account of normativity. Rules are a structure of reasons to perform the required act and an exclusionary reason not to follow some competing reasons. Exclusionary reasons are explained, and used to unlock the secrets of orders, promises, and decisions as well as rules. Games are used to exemplify normative systems. Inevitably, the analysis extends to some aspects of normative discourse, which is truth-apt, but with a diminished assertoric force.