Praising wishful thinking is a serious risk that the author is willing to run not only in this article commenting of Natalie Stoljar’s work but also elsewhere in his scholarship. The author will analyze her claims and will agree mostly with them, he will also criticize her for stopping one step short adopting the desirability or weaker claim, when in it is not merely possible but necessary to go one step beyond arguing for the necessity or stronger claim. The author intends to present further grounds for endorsing “conceptual (legal) analysis pluralism” by distinguishing the three different inquiry or projects that are and must be integrated and stating the normative priority of one of them, i.e. the prescriptive, interpretive, and moral.
6 Problema: Anuario de Filosofia y Teoria del Derecho (2012)
Scholarly Commons Citation
Flores, Imer, "Natalie Stoljar’s Wishful Thinking and One Step Beyond: What Should Conceptual Legal Analysis Become?" (2013). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 1143.