The concept of action and ascription of responsibility: H.L.A. Hart and some of his critics | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 42. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/42/1

The concept of action and ascription of responsibility: H.L.A. Hart and some of his critics

The article deals with the semantic specificity of the concept of action, the ascriptive and descriptive functions of action verbs, and how one can ascribe responsibility using these verbs by example of Herbert Hart's philosophy of action. Furthermore, some critical arguments against Hart's approach have been analyzed. The authors argue that this criticism does not defeat Hart's main idea that the denial of the physical and psychological components of action allows to conclude that, firstly, the concept of action is a social concept and logically dependent on the accepted rules of conduct; secondly, it is fundamentally not descriptive, but ascriptive in character; and, thirdly, it is a defeasible concept to be defined through exceptions and not by a set of necessary and sufficient conditions, be they physical or psychological.

Download file
Counter downloads: 210

Keywords

действие, приписывание, описание, ответственность, юридический язык, action, ascription, description, responsibility, legal language

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Ogleznev Vitaly V.Tomsk State University; West Siberian Branch of Russian State University of Justiceogleznev82@mail.ru
Surovtsev Valeriy A.Tomsk State University; Tomsk Scientific Center of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciencesurovtsev1964@mail.ru
Всего: 2

References

Оглезнев В.В. Дескриптивный и аскриптивный подходы к объяснению действия // Scho-lae. Философское антиковедение и классическая традиция. 2016. № 2(10). С. 471-482.
Агафонова Е.В. Понятие ответственности и проблема вменения в этико-правовом дискурсе: критика каузализма в этике // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2015. № 32. С. 141-150.
Харт Г.Л.А. Приписывание ответственности и прав // Философия и язык права : сб. науч. тр. / пер. с англ. под ред. В.В. Оглезнева, В.А. Суровцева. М., 2017. С. 27-52.
Denaro P. Moral Harm and Moral Responsibility: A Defence of Ascriptivism // Ratio Juris. 2012. Vol. 25. P. 149-179.
GeachP. Ascriptivism // Philosophical Review. 1960. Vol. 69, № 2. P. 221-225.
Pitcher G. Hart on Action and Responsibility // Philosophical Review. 1960. Vol. 69, № 2. P. 226-235.
Оглезнев В.В., Суровцев В.А. Питер Гич об аскриптивизме // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2017. № 40. С. 287-297.
Оглезнев В.В. Герберт Харт versus Джордж Питчер : историко-философская реконструкция критических аргументов // История государства и права. 2014. № 5. С. 17-21.
Davis P.E. "Action" and "Cause of Action" // Mind, New Series. 1962. Vol. 71, № 281. P. 93-95.
Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of Nebraska (1876), Vol. 4. Gant Publishing Company, 1876. P. 268-276.
Гэмпшир С., Харт Г.Л.А. Решение, намерение и достоверность // Философия и язык права : сб. науч. тр. / пер. с англ. под ред. В.В. Оглезнева, В.А. Суровцева. М., 2017. С. 215-229.
Helm P. Professor Hart on Action and Property // Mind, New Series. 1971. Vol. 80, № 319. P. 427-431.
 The concept of action and ascription of responsibility: H.L.A. Hart and some of his critics | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 42. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/42/1

The concept of action and ascription of responsibility: H.L.A. Hart and some of his critics | Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2018. № 42. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/42/1

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 1575