Legal Validity and the Infinite Regress
Black (Oliver)
Source: Law and Philosophy, Vol. 15, No. 4 (1996), pp. 339-368
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsNotes Citing this PaperColour-ConventionsDisclaimer

Author’s Abstract

  1. The following four theses all have some intuitive appeal:
    1. There are valid norms.
    2. A norm is valid only if justified by a valid norm.
    3. Justification, on the class of norms, has an irreflexive proper ancestral.
    4. There is no infinite sequence of valid norms each of which is justified by its successor.
  2. However, at least one must be false, for (I)-(III) together entail the denial of (IV). There is thus a conflict between intuition and logical possibility.
  3. This paper, after distinguishing various conceptions of a norm, of validity and of justification, argues for the following position. (I) is true. (II) is false for legislative justification and true for epistemic justification. (III) is true for legislative and false for epistemic justification. (IV) is true for legislative justification; for epistemic justification (IV) is true or false depending on the conception taken of a norm.
  4. Our intuition in favour of (II) must therefore be abandoned where justification is conceived legislatively. Our intuition in favour of (III) must be abandoned, and our intuition in favour of (IV) qualified, where justification is conceived epistemically.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2018
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Sept 2018. Please address any comments on this page to File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page