jurisprudence
JURISPRUDENCE
Knowledge is a true justified believe of something.
We use our linguistic intuition to figure out differences in meaning. And their uses seem to be already “there” for some reason (possibly linguistic intuition).
Counter Example: An example that refutes or disproves a hypothesis, proposition, or theorem.
We use Counter Example (Opposite scenario/extra condition) - to show that something is wrong i.e. that knowledge does not generally constitute true believe. Counter examples appeal to our intuition.
John Austin - Austin claims that all laws are coercive orders that impose duties or obligations on individuals. Laws are commands of a legally unlimited sovereign
H.L.A. Hart - Hart says, however, that laws may differ from the commands of a sovereign, because they may apply to those individuals who enact them and not merely to other individuals. Laws may also differ from coercive orders in that they may not necessarily impose duties or obligations but may instead confer powers or privileges.
Laws that impose duties or obligations on individuals are described by Hart as "primary rules of obligation." In order for a system of primary rules to function effectively, "secondary rules" may also be necessary in order to provide an authoritative statement of all the primary rules.
Primary rules of obligation are not in themselves sufficient to establish a system of laws that can be formally recognized, changed, or adjudicated, says Hart. It must be combined with secondary rules in order to advance from the pre-legal to the legal stage of determination. A legal system may thus be established by a union of primary and secondary rules
Secondary rules are necessary to allow legislators to make changes in the primary rules if the primary rules are found to be defective or inadequate. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to enable courts to resolve disputes over the interpretation and application of the primary rules. The secondary rules of
Knowledge is a true justified believe of something.
We use our linguistic intuition to figure out differences in meaning. And their uses seem to be already “there” for some reason (possibly linguistic intuition).
Counter Example: An example that refutes or disproves a hypothesis, proposition, or theorem.
We use Counter Example (Opposite scenario/extra condition) - to show that something is wrong i.e. that knowledge does not generally constitute true believe. Counter examples appeal to our intuition.
John Austin - Austin claims that all laws are coercive orders that impose duties or obligations on individuals. Laws are commands of a legally unlimited sovereign
H.L.A. Hart - Hart says, however, that laws may differ from the commands of a sovereign, because they may apply to those individuals who enact them and not merely to other individuals. Laws may also differ from coercive orders in that they may not necessarily impose duties or obligations but may instead confer powers or privileges.
Laws that impose duties or obligations on individuals are described by Hart as "primary rules of obligation." In order for a system of primary rules to function effectively, "secondary rules" may also be necessary in order to provide an authoritative statement of all the primary rules.
Primary rules of obligation are not in themselves sufficient to establish a system of laws that can be formally recognized, changed, or adjudicated, says Hart. It must be combined with secondary rules in order to advance from the pre-legal to the legal stage of determination. A legal system may thus be established by a union of primary and secondary rules
Secondary rules are necessary to allow legislators to make changes in the primary rules if the primary rules are found to be defective or inadequate. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to enable courts to resolve disputes over the interpretation and application of the primary rules. The secondary rules of