1. What sort of topics are covered by political philosophy or applied ethics and what sort of topics are covered by legal philosophy?
2. What does analytic jurisprudence involve?
a. In reading this particular section you want to not the distinction between the naturalistic and conceptual analysis of law. You especially want to note the differences between Bix’s points 1 and 2 from points 3 and 4. In many ways we our course of study will fall into points 3 and 4. We will be asking “what is law?,” a question that can have many different interpretations. For example, we will ask what makes a set of commands a legitimate law that we all agree to obey for some reason? In short, our course of study falls under analytic jurisprudence. To learn the differences from other ways that one can study jurisprudence, be sure to read the preface from Wacks’ Philosophy of Law: A very short introduction.
3. What are the two main headings of conceptual analytic jurisprudence?
4. What is the overlap thesis and which theory does it belong to? What is Blackstone’s version and the two main claim given in his theory?
5. Finnis argues that the overlap thesis is not really about giving an account of legal validity (the idea that a law is a valid law because it is derived from and coheres with the laws of God or moral laws). What is Finnis view of the overlap thesis?
6. According to Fuller, why are principles 2 and 4 important? Do you agree?
7. What is one significant difference between natural law theory and legal positivism?
8. Legal positivists ascribe to 3 main theses. What are they?
9. According to positivism, where does a law get its legal validity?
10. What is the difference between Hart’s primary rules and the secondary rules?
11. What are Hart’s three secondary rules?
12. What is Hart’s social fact thesis? (You can quote here.) What do you think this means?
13. What is the separability thesis’ view of morality its role in the law?
a. Should note that Hart is a very influential 20th century scholar in this particular field.
Url:
