U ovome radu zagovaram stajalište koje uključni pozitivisti dijele s Ronaldom Dworkinom. Prema tezi o uključenosti morala , logički je moguće da pravni sustav uključuje moralne kriterije pravnosti . Do ovoga trenutka rasprava je uvijek imala oblik napada na koherentnost TUM-a, pri čemu su branitelji TUM-a samo pokušavali osporiti napadajući argument. Ja u prilog TUM-u iznosim pozitivan argument, koji započinjem objašnjenjem logike dokazivanja mogućnosnih tvrdnji kao što je to TUM. Pritome na samom početku vrijedi istaknuti da se logika dokazivanja mogućnosnih (...) tvrdnji umnogome razlikuje od logike dokazivanja kontingentnih deskriptivnih tvrdnji ili nužnih tvrdnji. Zbog toga će ovdje biti potrebno dati neka pojašnjenja važnih obilježja semantike modalne logike. Nakon prikladne razrade strukturnog okvira, argument u prilog TUM-a bit će zasnovan na iznenađujuće jednostavnom mislenom eksperimentu. Zapravo, argument pronalazi svoje nadahnuće u Razovom argumentu u prilog mogućnosti postojanja pravnog sustava koji se ne temelji na prisilnoj mašineriji izvršavanja prava; prema njemu, društvo anđela i dalje bi imalo sustav prava, iako u tom sustavu ne bi postojala prisilna mašinerija. Moj argument sadržavat će dvije teorijski važne značajke koje sadrži i Razov snažno jednostavan, ali u konačnici neuspješan argument. (shrink)

In this essay, I argue for a view that inclusive positivists share with Ronald Dworkin. According to the Moral Incorporation Thesis (MIT), it is logically possible for a legal system to incorporate moral criteria of legality (or “grounds of law,” as Dworkin puts it). Up to this point, the debate has taken the shape of attacks on the coherence of MIT with the defender of MIT merely attempting to refute the attacking argument. I give a positive argument for MIT. I (...) begin with an explanation of the logic of establishing possibility claims, such as MIT. At the outset, it is worth noting that the logic of establishing possibility claims is very different from the logic of establishing contingent descriptive claims or necessary claims. For this reason, some explication of the relevant features of the semantics of modal logic will be necessary here. Once the structural framework is adequately developed, the argument for MIT will be grounded on the strength of a thought experiment of a surprisingly simple kind. Indeed, the argument is inspired by a Razian argument for the possibility of a legal system without coercive enforcement machinery; on his view, a society of angels could still have a system of law without any coercive machinery. My argument will possess two theoretically important qualities that are also possessed by Raz’s powerfully simple, but ultimately unsuccessful, argument. (shrink)

Climate change is imposing intensified and novel selection pressures on organisms by altering abiotic and biotic environmental conditions on Earth, but studies demonstrating genetic adaptation to climate change mediated selection are still scarce. Evidence is accumulating to indicate that both genetic and ecological constrains may often limit populations' abilities to adapt to large scale effects of climate warming. These constraints may predispose many organisms to respond to climate change with range shifts and phenotypic plasticity, rather than through evolutionary adaptation. In (...) general, broad conclusions about the role of evolutionary adaptation in mitigating climate change induced fitness loss in the wild are as yet difficult to make.Editor's suggested further reading in BioEssays: How will fish that evolved at constant sub‐zero temperatures cope with global warming? Notothenioids as a case study Abstract. (shrink)

The author examines the character of the changes taking place in contemporary Serbian society. He emphasizes at the same time that contemporary Serbian philosophy is facing these crucial questions as well, which without it cannot be even addressed, let alone solved. The key difference between modern West European and contemporary Serbian societies, seen from the perspective of philosophy, is demonstrated most clearly in the manner of constituting institutions and transforming the modern Serbian society. In the process of building modern institutions (...) philosophy, not just in our country but throughout the Slavic East, has not had the role it played in Europe. Here lies the explanation why natural consciousness and an original ethos, though considerably modified, still remain unadapted and today represent a major obstacle to the establishment of the rule of European law. Without a change in the sense of justice and respect for the law it is impossible to accomplish the transformation of the society in which the law recognized by a democratic state could not be super ordinate to any reason. The crucial role of philosophy in this process is seen by the author not only in establishing modern European institutions and acceptance of the principle of European legislation, but above all in its influence on the transformation of the original ethos and establishment of new criteria on which the reflection, decision making and action of any individual would be based.. Autor u ovom radu nastoji da pokaze u cemu se sastoji sustinski karakter promenama koje se danas ostvaruju u savremenom srpskom drustvu, ukazujuci istovremeno, da i savremena srpska filozofija stoji pred tim sustinskim pitanjima, koja se bez njenog sudelovanja ne mogu na valjan nacin ni predociti, a kamo li da se mogu uvideti putevi njihovog razresenja. Kljucna razlika izmedju modernog zapadnoevropskog i savremenog srpskog drustva, sagledanog iz perspektive filozofije, najjasnije se pokazuje u nacinu konstituisanju institucija i nacina preobrazaja modernog srpskog drustva. U izgradnji modernih institucija filozofija, ne samo u nas, vec i na celom slovenskom istoku nije imala onu ulogu koju je imala u Evropi. U toj cinjenici nalazi se objasnjenje zasto su prirodna svest i izvorna obicajnost, iako znatno izmenjeni, ostali ipak neprilagodjeni i danas predstavljaju jednu od glavnih prepreka u uspostavljanju vladavine evropskog prava. Bez promene osecanja pravednosti i postovanja zakona nije moguce izvrsiti preobrazaj drustva u kojem pravo priznato od demokratske drzave ne bi moglo biti nadredjeno nikakvom umu. Kljucnu ulogu filozofije, autor ne vidi samo u uspostavljanju modernih evropskih institucija i prihvatanju nacela evropskog zakonodavstva, vec pre svega u njenom uticaju na preobrazaj izvornog etosa i uspostavljanje novih merila na kojima ce biti zasnovano promisljanje, odlucivanje i delanje svakog pojedinca.. (shrink)

Članek obravnava pravno teorijo, ki je prisotna v končnem delu Vebrovega spisa Etika. Prvi poizkus eksaktne logike nagonske pameti. Veber se le mimogrede ukvarja s teorijo prava, vendar njegov prispevek ni zanemarljiv. Vebrova Etika je logika nagonske pameti: Veber, gledano iz čistega predmetnoteoretičnega vidika, ne sestavlja zbirke moralnih zapovedi, ampak namerava orisati najsplošnejša formalna načela, ki določajo pravilnost nagonskega doživetja. Tega, kaj mora posameznik narediti v danem trenutku, logika nagonske pameti ne more povedati, ker je le formalna veda. »Most« med (...) formalnim in materialnim pristopom nravnemu problemu Veber najde v glasu vesti, ki svetuje posamezniku, kaj naj naredi v konkretnem delovanju. V soglasju s tem mora biti državno pravo osnovano na načelih nagonske logike, ker bi bilo drugače brez vsake veljavnosti. Pravo velja, v kolikor je utemeljeno na logiki, ki orisuje imanentna načela človeške narave; cilj prava je pospeševanje čim bolj pravilnega življenja posameznikov in družbe. Z druge strani vsebina tega prava ni enkrat za vselej določena in napisana, ampak vsakič izhaja iz hermenevtike, ki jo posamezniki in družba morajo izvršiti o sebi in o svoji naravi. Etika »zdravega razuma« in »povprečnega človeka« je po Vebru najboljši model za materialno izpopolnenje formalne nagonske logike. (shrink)

Gregory Vlastos je v svoji znani rekonstrukciji argumenta »tritos anthropos« menil, da je regres tretjega človeka usodna napaka platonske teorije idej, saj vpeljuje najmanj dve protislovni logični značilnosti tega nauka: predpostavlja namreč dve načeli, samopripis in neistovetnost. Argument tretjega človeka zato obravnavam na podlagi upoštevanja omenjenih načel in njune veljavnosti v dveh inačicah, ki ju je podal Aleksander Afrodizijski. V prvi, ki je tradicionalno pripisana Aristotelu pod imenom O idejah in jo najdemo v Aleksandrovem komentarju k Metafiziki, in nato (...) še v Evdemovi inačici, kakršno domnevno ta navaja pri svoji aristotelski kritiki Platonove teorije idej. V drugem delu prispevka je narejena primerjava med Aristotelovima inačicama tretjega človeka in Platonovim pripoznanjem neskončnega regresa v obeh verzijah iz njegovega Parmenida: regres iz ideje velikega in regres iz idej kot vzorov, ki prav tako končujeta v neskončnem regresu novih idej: te po svojem bistvu ne bodo več ene, ampak brezmejno mnoge. (shrink)

The paper claims that the rule of recognition, given the way it is presented by Hart, cannot be a constitutive rule of any legal system as a whole, but rather a constitutive rule of legal rules as elements of a legal system. Since I take the legal system to be an institutional artifact kind, I claim that, in order to account for a legal system as a whole, at least two further constitutive rules, in addition to the rule of recognition (...) as a token-element constitutive rule, are needed – one constitutive of legal officials and the other constitutive of a legal system as a token. However, given the central role the legal officials' practice occupies in establishing a particular instantiation or token of a legal system, I also claim that the rule of recognition cannot be understood as 'merely' a token-element constitutive rule but also as a legal system's implementation or concretisation rule. (shrink)