Hart's rule of recognition identifies law through convergent official behavior and pedigree criteria, requiring no moral reasoning about iniquity thresholds that natural law theorists like Finnis treat as central to adjudication.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
Iniquity thresholds(as something natural law theorists care about but Hart's theory doesn't require)
The point at which a law becomes so unjust or unfair that courts might refuse to enforce it or interpret it differently, based on moral reasoning.
Natural law theorists(as contrasted with Hart's approach)
Philosophers who believe that laws should be based on universal moral principles (what's right and wrong), not just on what governments happen to declare.
Pedigree criteria(as another method Hart uses to identify what counts as law)
A method of identifying law by checking its source or history—for example, 'is this rule written in the legal code?' or 'did the legislature actually pass this?'
rule of recognition(Positivist clarification against Dworkin's diversity argument)
A social rule that identifies source-based legal norms; positivists deny it is meant to identify all relevant reasons for legal decisions or to tell judges how to decide cases