Barbara Levenbook

The purpose of this essay is to defend a claim that a certain consideration, which I call unworkability, is universally and necessarily relevant to legal reasoning. By that I mean that it is a consideration that must carry legal weight in the justification of some judicial decisions in every legal system in which (1) all disputed matters of law can be adjudicated, and (2) all judicial decisions are to be legally justified. Unworkability's necessary relevance has important implications for a theory of relevance presented by Rolf Sartorius. On this theory, nearly all considerations that are relevant to a judicial decision are supplied by legal principles embedded in the legal rules and decisions, or by extralegal principles dependent, in some way, on the legal principles. (The exceptions to the embedding thesis that Sartorius would, no doubt, recognize are elaborated in the text but can be set aside here.) But there are possible legal systems which do not contain an embedded legal principle concerning unworkability; and nonetheless, unworkability is relevant to judicial reasoning in those systems. Hence, a theory of relevance that relies on principles embedded in the content of rules is too simplistic. Some substantive considerations are relevant for other reasons.

In various works, Mark Greenberg has positioned himself as an important critic of legal positivism. He has made a transcendental attack on a metaphysical position that some notable legal positivists have held -- namely, that law is ultimately grounded in social facts. He has pressed legal positivism at a point of perceived vulnerability – the failure of such positivists to develop and defend a compelling theory of legal content. Moreover, in his Moral Impact Theory of law, he preserves a necessary connection between legal obligations and good reasons for action that is absent in legal positivism. This last point may seem particularly attractive, even to those with positivist sympathies. One of his arguments against legal positivism relies heavily on what he calls "the bindingness hypothesis"—namely, the claim that it is part of the “nature of law” that it is “supposed to operate” so as to “arrange matters” to “reliably ensure” that its legal obligations are genuinely, all-things-considered, binding. I argue that Greenberg’s defense of the bindingness hypothesis fails. I attack two other defenses he raises for the Moral Impact theory: the assertion that the Moral Impact Theory makes it easy to account for our concern with law, with the implication that legal positivism cannot so easily account for that concern; and the claim that his Moral Impact Theory fits appellate practice better than some views. I show that these the arguments for the Moral Impact Theory are inadequate. In response to Greenberg’s further argument that the Moral Impact Theory rescues the idea of legal obligation as genuine obligation, I argue that the Moral Impact Theory does so at a very steep price – one that is not worth paying.

Everyone agrees that law is a constituent of social reality. Law seems to be a system by which conduct is governed and guided. Its usefulness consists, in part, on its ability to govern and guide conduct in its characteristic way. If laws guides the conduct of lay law subjects, then it must be (really) possible for the content of the laws governing their conduct to be known by them under standard social conditions. Moreover, if some degree of efficacy in guiding and governing the conduct of lay law subjects is an existence condition for a legal system, then in existing legal systems enough of the content of directive law is epistemically accessed by enough law subjects so that they can apply it to their situations and correctly determine the act-tokens required of them. In this chapter, I argue that these modest epistemic reflections have important implications for a theory of legal content that have been largely ignored. Holistic theories of legal content, such as Greenberg’s and Dworkin’s, are inconsistent with an adequate account of epistemic access. After demonstrating the same problem in two mainstream non-holistic theories of legal content -- the view that legal content is set entirely by official interpretive conventions, and the view that legal content is set entirely by official intentions – I propose a theory of legal content that meets the epistemic access challenge. On my approach, law is, at its core, centered upon the understandings of law subjects. (This view is meant to exempt constitutional provisions.) More precisely, the legal content of statutes and judicial decisions is built around, and preserves, a core of understandings and meaning-assignments that is the province of anyone with sufficient linguistic ability and relevant socialization. The details of this view are, roughly: (1) in the case of judicial decisions in a common law system, the social salience of the example the decision sets concerning behavior sets the default legal content; (2) in the case of statutory directives, the set of socially salient applications (behavior in situations) sets the default legal content. I say `default’ because my account of legal content is a two-stage account beginning with the default content and permitting a second stage in which considerations from other sources can operate on the default. Yet if a certain amount of efficacy in guiding lay law subjects’ behavior is a requirement for the existence of a legal system, there must be a core of legal content undistorted from its default social salience by a second stage operation. There is and must be a `law of the street’.

Older statutes sometimes alter the legal content of newer statutes in a way not apparent from the text of the newer statutes. The puzzle is how, even if a new statute is the choice of the current polis, the legal content created in part by the elderly statute is also the choice of the current polis. I consider several possible answers, including a legislative intent account and Dworkin’s, and argue that none of them is satisfactory. I then offer my own account, the De Re Account, which depends on distinguishing choosing under a description from choosing de re and noting that background norms and conventions sometimes determine what one does. In the case of legislation, because of the pragmatic norms for legal language and conventional practices against which a legislature acts, the legal content of the newer statute is chosen de re.

The social fact thesis, is, roughly, that law is ultimately a matter of social fact. Mark Greenberg and Kevin Toh have launched transcendental arguments against important or interesting general versions of the social fact thesis. Together, they can be read as posing a dilemma for the thesis. Suppose that many correct assertions of law are normative. Then, according to Toh, the considerations in virtue of which they are correct cannot ultimately be social facts, because the derivation of any normative conclusion requires a normative premise. Suppose that correct assertions of law are not normative. Then, according to Greenberg, they cannot state legal facts in virtue of social facts alone, because the very nature of law requires a particular kind of rational connection between determinants of legal facts and legal facts. Social facts cannot meet this demand; (non-legal) normative facts are needed. In short, Greenberg and Toh together claim that the social fact thesis is consistent with neither the existence nor the normativity of law. This essay meets their challenge.

In this essay, I argue against a way of approaching the issue of Judicial discretion that finds its clearest exposition and highest development in recent works by Ronald Dworkin. This approach is too narrow. It ignores a kind of Judicial discretion whose existence has been maintained by jurists with discretionist sympathies, and which is philosophically significant. The kind of discretion it ignores raises the issue of the justification of adjudication as clearly as does the kind of discretion that it recognizes. Moreover, discussion of the kind of discretion ignored is in some respects the natural starting place for a discussion of judicial discretion in general.

Many contemporary philosophers of law agree that a necessary condition for a decision to be legally justified, even in a hard case, is that it coheres with established law. Some, namely Sartorius and Dworkin, have gone beyond that relatively uncontroversial claim and described the role of coherence in legal justification as analogous to its role in moral and scientific justification, on contemporary theories. In this, I argue, they are mistaken. Specifically, coherence in legal justification is sometimes specific to a branch of law, and there is nothing isomorphic to this in the models of moral and scientific justification. Although Dworkin and Sartorius rely on the concept of coherence, they do not explicate it. In the course of examining their views, this essay offers a partial analysis of coherence on their models. Finally, two canons of relevance, governing when global coherence considerations are appropriate to legal justification, are presented.

This is an essay on aggravating circumstances. Rather than defend a thesis that particular things ought to be considered aggravating circumstances to wrongdoing, I assume general agreement about major sorts of aggravating circumstances; and I ask instead how they work and what their operation reveals about moral standards in general and minimal expectations in particular. In the final section of this essay, I briefly consider what can be said in defense of the commonsense principle that punishment should be more severe if a crime is committed under aggravating circumstances than if it is not.

This essay presents a new theory of statutory application that is superior to two competitors. One of the competitors claims that statutory directives apply to act-tokens fitting the legislature's intention. The other holds that statutes apply to act-tokens that are of the genuine kinds named by the classifying words. These theories solve certain problems badly or not at all, respectively: (1) accounting for the capacity of statutes for epistemic guidance; and (2) avoiding literalism. Both do a limited job of accounting for the rationality of statutory promulgation. The theory developed here, social salience theory, does better on all counts. According to social salience theory, the default position is that statutes apply to act-tokens that are socially salient, given the linguistic and social contexts. The departure from that position is also social, produced by conventions to defer to experts on the statute's applications to particular cases

This essay challenges Dworkin's account of the virtues and consistency of applying the right answer as given by a certain interpretive theory of local law (hereafter, the D-theory) with democratic theory. D-theory adjudication does not have all the virtues Dworkin claims for it. It may involve judicial law-creation as well, rather than being confined to the discovery of preexisting legal rights. It may also involve any of the morally objectionable features of judicial law-creation, including unfairness. It is not immune to the objection based on democratic theory that Dworkin considers. Moreover, discretionary judicial law-creation is free of some of the vices that concern Dworkin. For these reasons, neither Dworkin's view of D-theory adjudication nor his denial that judges commonly have legislative discretion seems to be especially significant for the justification of appellate adjudication.

A familiar jurisprudential view is that a judicial decision functions as a legal precedent by laying down a rule and that the content of this rule is set by officials. Precedents can be followed only by acting in accordance with this rule. This view is mistaken on all counts. A judicial decision functions as a precedent by being an example. At its best, it is an example both for officials and for a target population. Even precedents outside of law function as examples when they have conduct-guiding significance. Examples may be rule-like in their scope, but need not be. Their import is independent of their justification; this point has implications for coherence theories of precedent meaning. The content and scope of a legal decision’s extension is not set exclusively by officials. It is socially set and depends upon social salience

I argue for the possibility of posthumous harm based on an account of the harm of murder. I start with the deep-seated intuition that when someone is murdered he (or she) is harmed (over and above the pain of injury or dying), and argue that Feinberg's account that assumes that harm is an invasion of an interest cannot plausibly accommodate this intuition. I propose a new account of the harm of murder: it is an irreversible loss of functions necessary for worthwhile existence. I suggest a (partial) loss analysis of harm in general, and then go on to apply it to posthumous harm and defend the idea that there can be posthumous losses.