Ich beneide die Menschen, die gut und genau die deutsche Sprache beherrschen können. Danke noch mal für die tolle Sendung und wünsche alles bestens für 2021.
Fascinating German perspective on the matter. It should be noted that Anglo-American legal positivists reject all of these theses. For good overview: John Gardner, "Legal Positivism: 5 1/2 Myths" (2001)
@@philogramm3398 Gardner is a legal positivist who claims that most of the thesis associated with legal positivism are not held by legal positivists (so if those thesis are false - and they are - does nothing to damage legal positivism). So Gardner would reject all of Hoerster's thesis not because legal positivists think they are true, but because they do not hold them. Legal positivists that Gardner has in mind: Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Hans Kelsen, HLA Hart and Joseph Raz, who are prominent in Anglo-American literature. I think it might be more correct to say that "modern" legal positivists do not hold any of those thesis. What unites all of them is that they believe that law can "exist" and be "valid", without being "good" or "moral". The closest this comes to anything on the list is 1) and 4), but that is not quite right, because that thesis on legal validity (geltung) is different from anything on the list. Legal positivists reject 1), because there are obviously many necessary connections between law and morals (they both have rules, so there is one necessary connection no one will reject; there are many others). Hoerster's thesis 4) is a bit confusing, but I think legal positivists would reject it because they are agnostic about "real/correct" (richtigen) law (in fact they are interested in conditions for existence of Gesetz, not *correct* Recht, if that makes sense). I am just rambling at this point :)
Ich beneide die Menschen, die gut und genau die deutsche Sprache beherrschen können. Danke noch mal für die tolle Sendung und wünsche alles bestens für 2021.
Das ist so gut erklärt, danke!
bitte, wenn mir irgendjemand helfen kann: was sagt Hoerster zur passiven Sterbehilfe? ich muss meine Facharbeit morgen abgeben bitte
Fascinating German perspective on the matter. It should be noted that Anglo-American legal positivists reject all of these theses. For good overview: John Gardner, "Legal Positivism: 5 1/2 Myths" (2001)
Thank you for the input!
Don't you think, that Gardner's LP includes Hoerster 1&2?
@@philogramm3398 Gardner is a legal positivist who claims that most of the thesis associated with legal positivism are not held by legal positivists (so if those thesis are false - and they are - does nothing to damage legal positivism). So Gardner would reject all of Hoerster's thesis not because legal positivists think they are true, but because they do not hold them.
Legal positivists that Gardner has in mind: Thomas Hobbes, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Hans Kelsen, HLA Hart and Joseph Raz, who are prominent in Anglo-American literature. I think it might be more correct to say that "modern" legal positivists do not hold any of those thesis. What unites all of them is that they believe that law can "exist" and be "valid", without being "good" or "moral". The closest this comes to anything on the list is 1) and 4), but that is not quite right, because that thesis on legal validity (geltung) is different from anything on the list. Legal positivists reject 1), because there are obviously many necessary connections between law and morals (they both have rules, so there is one necessary connection no one will reject; there are many others). Hoerster's thesis 4) is a bit confusing, but I think legal positivists would reject it because they are agnostic about "real/correct" (richtigen) law (in fact they are interested in conditions for existence of Gesetz, not *correct* Recht, if that makes sense). I am just rambling at this point :)
Gutes Video danke