Is it possible to create a category like “philosophy of law”?
Since I am primarily a lawyer and we even have a legal discipline of the same name, it would be nice to discuss this sometimes.
Why does this go beyond a general topic like ethics?
Because the philosophy of law is broader than just ethics. If we look at this discipline from a philosopher’s perspective, it appears interdisciplinary and addresses:
Ontology: what is law by its nature; how does it relate to law or morality.
Epistemology: is “objective” interpretation possible? What problems does the interpreter encounter when interpreting?
Axiology: For example, must values necessarily underlie law?
Logic.
Ethics (I won’t dwell on these two points: they’re obvious)
Social philosophy: law as a social institution
Philosophical anthropology: the nature of the emergence of human rights, etc.
This would be of interest to practicing lawyers, master’s degree holders, candidates, and doctors of law, and perhaps would attract more users with diverse approaches to the forum.
As it happens, we do need a new category: social philosophy or philosophy of society. Topics in the philosopphy of law could go in that category, and I suppose we could even add philosophy of law as a subcategory.
I think this is a good suggestion and worth considering. Philosophy of law is genuinely interdisciplinary in the way you describe, and it doesn’t reduce to ethics or any single existing category.
What strikes me about your list is that every one of those questions is a framework question. The legal system is a belief system with its own foundations, its own standards of evidence, its own practices of justification. Lawyers deal with philosophical questions every day without always recognising them as philosophical. What counts as evidence? How do you interpret a text? What grounds a right? What makes a law legitimate? These aren’t abstract puzzles for someone who works in law. They’re practical realities.
I think that concreteness could be valuable. Philosophy discussions sometimes get lost in abstraction. Legal philosophy has the advantage of being tied to real cases, real consequences, real disagreements that have to be resolved one way or another. A judge can’t say “this is an interesting epistemological problem, let me think about it indefinitely.” A decision has to be made, and the philosophical assumptions behind that decision are worth examining.
It could also bring in people who wouldn’t normally engage with a philosophy forum but who are doing philosophy in practice every day. That seems like a good thing for the community.
I don’t make these decisions, but for what it’s worth I’d welcome it.
I’ve decided that my idea to add it as a subcategory within a new social philosophy top-level category is not the right thing to do—as you note, social philosophy is just one of many disciplines it can involve.
So the best options are:
Top-level category
Tag
I hesitate to add the philosophy of law as a new top-level category because it won’t get much action. It’s not good to have categories that languish.
Thank you for joining us! I suggest starting small (the smallest possible) and then monitoring its popularity. I’ll try to periodically update this section with content. Of course, the approach to philosophizing will be somewhat different, since the outcome of such discussions will be aimed at practical solutions, not necessarily endless reflection on reflection (although I personally enjoy that too).
So, I’ve come up with a new topic for a new section (subsection).
I second the motion. It’s a good idea. I distinctly rememeber reading (a) legal document(s). There’s some very, very interesting clauses we should all be aware of. I also have some idea about so-called fine print, but if it has a point, that’s lost on me.
The OP, despite his apparent linguistic proficiency, has forgotten the importance of language. Does, no tie, no entry, mean I can wear a tie but no underpants? The devil, as many have discovered, is in the details.
The devil, as many have discovered, is in the details.