Joseph Raz sample essay PDF

Preview

Summary

JOSEPH RAZFrom the particular quotation, it can be agreed that it demands the analysis of Joseph Raz’s postulation of law. I shall discuss about this theory so as to construct my standpoint regarding Raz’s supposition of how the law should function.Joseph Raz is a supreme legal positivist who is als...

Description

JOSEPH RAZ From the particular quotation, it can be agreed that it demands the analysis of Joseph Raz’s postulation of law. I shall discuss about this theory so as to construct my standpoint regarding Raz’s supposition of how the law should function. Joseph Raz is a supreme legal positivist who is also a philosopher. He primarily worked on the matters that concern the ‘nature of authority’ and the ‘authoritative character of law’ and it has been profound in the area of moral and political philosophy and also law. Raz asserted that, in order for a society to perform properly, it is essential to have legislations that can guide people appropriately. His ideals surfaced from the base that rules must have the potential to direct someone’s actions. His principles provide that legislations must be as such that they are explicit so people can perform in conformity with it; instead of being retroactive, legislations must be presumptive; legislations should not be refashioned regularly since this may result in uncertainty (‘The law’s own virtue’ [2019] Oxford Journal of Legal Studies). In ‘Incorporation by law’ (2004) 10 Legal Theory 1, Raz talks about legal positivism which is also referred to as ‘hard positivism’. He explicates that law cannot be settled with moral reasoning and says this against people who submit that they are legal positivists but simultaneously, acknowledge that law does require moral rationale in some situations. Professor Raz encapsulated his concept by stating, ‘If morality applies to people and courts alike anyway, then we are all, courts included, bound by it even before its incorporation.’ Authorities assert ownership of the right to instruct people on what they should do or believe. A practical authority (e.g. law) directs us with what we should do, for instance- to stop at red lights; a theoretical authority (e.g. physicist) directs us with what we are to believe, for instance- the whole world is increasing in size. Besides this, some authorities like that of a doctor play both the roles as they tell us what the matter with us is, i.e. what we should believe and they also guide us with what medicine we should take, i.e. what we should do. The notion of the ‘paradox of authority’ is that it is baseless to adhere to an authority. People who

follow this idea are known as “philosophical anarchists”. Its original concept is that one must follow the correct thing to do/ believe anyway irrespective of whether it is told by the authority and one should not do/ believe wrong in any case as it is wrong, even if it comes from an authority because that would be a wrong thing to do. As per this concept, the authority appears to be of no use. A remedy to this is the ‘legitimacy of power’, however, the results are displeasing. Raz believes that an authority is only valid when it thoroughly checks the balance of reasons and provides the society with an accurate legislation on what to do so that people do not have to evaluate matters by themselves. This thought of Raz dismisses the paradox. When it comes to theoretical authority, it can be concurred that problem does not arise here. This is because people pay heed to a doctor as they know exactly what the issue with us is and we do not. In such a case it would be foolish of us to not listen to the doctor as it is will only be of detriment to us. Hence, it is to be agreed that taking the advice of an authority sometimes works for our purpose and it is absolutely logical. Raz emphasizes about this particular service conception of authority. One aspect of Raz’s theory propounds that law does not cover all areas and it is viewed by some people as flawed. For example, law does not have complete authority over someone’s sexual morality. Nonetheless, others view this as his theory’s uprightness. The prime component of one of the notions of Raz of practical reasoning is known as the exclusionary reason and it assigns the deliberative and executive phases to separate groups of people or events. The phase where reason is ruminated on and reached to a conclusion as to what to do is the ‘deliberative’ phase; when the decision is being acted upon is the ‘executive’ phase. When we abide by the directive given by an authority we accept it as an exclusionary reason. A norm is a typical degree through which we look for people to act in accordance with it and judge them based on it. Rules and orders are common factors of norms. Rules are incorporated generally that must be obeyed always and; orders or ‘one-off’s are incorporated in certain situation. Rights are the type of norms that vary from person to person. The actuality of rights comes from the interest of

every individual and this validates the existence of rights. Howbeit, it must also be kept in mind that rights do have restrictions. To give an instance, the right to free speech is a prominent right yet it also needs to be checked that whether someone’s right to free speech is creating a problem of defamation to someone else. Power has the propensity to initiate, modify or eliminate norms. It is not to be mixed up with rights. Powers have the potential to do something. Duties harmonize with rights and can also be promulgated with rules. Razian terminology refers to duties as exclusionary reasons. Raz contends that a law is only able to direct people if it has an authoritative direction. He further affirms that law cannot base its directive on morality. He believes that an authority must be able to arbitrate between balance of reasons and the subjects; a directive can only be authoritative when it tells people what to do; directives should bring pragmatic differences; law must be unambiguous; law cannot be authoritative if it demands its subjects to act reasonably and; this feud comes from the axiom, ‘you can’t do what you can’t do’ because an authority cannot judge an action if it itself did not identify the action. The outlook of soft positivism is that law does not require morality to be assimilated in it however, it can do it sometimes. Raz does not agree with it. He believes that there is no need for the incorporation of morality in law. Dworkin criticized Raz’s theory in ‘Thirty years on’, (2002) by expressing that morality cannot be incorporated into an authoritative directive. I believe with Raz’s theory of law that law should be an authoritative directive and direct people as to what to do but to a certain degree I also believe that moral standards may be required by law sometimes. 100% unique Please write your intro according to the question.

18/25...