Explore the vast range of titles available.

V nizu razprav, objavljenih med koncem dvajsetih in sredino šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, je Hans Kelsen v naravnopravniško teorijo uperil radikalno kritiko. Avtor te razprave skuša to kritiko analitično obnoviti in kritično ovrednotiti. Njegov zapis je sestavljen iz dveh delov. V prvem se posveča temeljem Kelsnove argumentacijske strategije zoper naravno pravo in naravnopravniške teoretike. V drugem delu pa se osredotoči na dva kritična odgovora na Kelsnov napad. Enega je v imenu tradicionalne naravnopravniške teorije podal Edgar Bodenheimer, drugega pa je v imenu »Nove naravnopravniške teorije« izoblikoval Robert P. George. Avtorjeva analiza nakazuje, da se Kelsnova kritika uspešno zoperstavlja tem kritičnim odgovorom.

Este trabajo tiene como objetivo argumentar a favor de la tolerancia de ciertas \"inmoralidades inofensivas o sin víctimas\". Tomando como punto de partida el liberalismo perfeccionista de Joseph Raz, así como la crítica que de él hace Robert P. George, se plantean argumentos a favor de tolerar ciertos males en aras de evitar que se instrumentalice a las personas. Como conclusión se afirma que, aunque equivocadamente, es posible elegir realizar acciones consentidas que atenten contra el principio del daño. This paper argues for tolerance of some \"harmless or victimless immoralities\". To this end —and taking into account both Joseph Raz's perfectionist liberalism, and the critique of the latter by Robert P. George— arguments are set forth for tolerance of some evils aimed at avoiding using people as a means. In conclusion, it is stated that, although mistakenly, people should be free to carry out consented actions which infringe upon harm principle.

Contemporary debates on the nature and scope of practical reason are often framed in terms of the viewpoints of a few major figures in the history of philosophy. Whereas advocates of skeptical or procedural approaches to practical reason generally seek historical support from Hume, defenders of more substantive conceptions of practical rationality tend to draw inspiration from Aristotle or Kant. This paper argues that it is in fact the work of Aquinas which offers the best material for a defense of a substantive conception of practical rationality. After outlining the distinction between procedural and substantive conceptions, the author turns to Christine M. Korsgaard’s rearticulation of a Kantian viewpoint on practical reason. The advocate of a Kantian framework, he argues, is less well equipped than the defender of the Thomistic conception to meet necessary constraints on a substantive account. The paper closes with a discussion of the way contemporary versions of natural law theory can meet these constraints.

In a series of essays published from the late 1920s up to the mid-1960s, Hans Kelsen carried out a radical critique of natural law theory. The present paper purports to provide an analytical reconstruction and critical assessment of such a critique. It contains two parts. Part one surveys the fundamentals of Kelsen’s argumentative strategy against natural law and its theorists. Part two considers, in turn, two critical reactions to Kelsen’s criticisms: by Edgar Bodenheimer, on behalf of traditional natural law theory; by Robert P. George, on behalf of “the new natural law theory”. As the analysis suggests, Kelsen’s critique stands up to the criticisms.