Legal Positivism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Spring 2009 Edition)https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/spr2009/entries/legal-positivism/
analytically inclined philosophers of law, it is also the subject of competing interpretations together with persistent criticisms and misunderstandings. 1. Development and Influe
Can Environmentalist Escape Philosophy?https://gadfly.igc.org/papers/ceep.htm
is the Time for Philosophers to Come to the Aid of Their Planet," published in 1998, is available at this site. Teachers of environmental ethics are free to use these e
The Nature of Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2004 Edition)https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/Win2004/entries/lawphil-nature/
But many legal philosophers doubt that there are legal principles of the kind Dworkin envisaged. There is an alternative, more natural way to account for the distinction between r
History of Philosophyhttps://friesian.com/history.htm
be one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century. Πολυμαθίη νόον ἔχ
THE PUSH AND CRITICAL DRINKERShttps://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/push.html
were largely run by philosophers; the Push was a wider movement of which the Libertarian Society was a core and source of ideology. The Freethought Society, as we saw, was a vehic
Communitarianismhttps://ethicalpolitics.org/blackwood/communitarianism.htm
and Hegel, political philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor and Michael Walzer disputed Rawls assumption that the principal task of government is
Two Faces of Liberalismhttps://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/g/gray-liberalism.html
surprising that liberal philosophers differ about the most fundamental requirements of justice. Today, most liberal thinkers affirm that justice is the supreme virtue of social in
Find more...