Analysis Of William Morrison's Explusion Form For Ease Of Communication
Exercise 1: In this response, I will explain and evaluate Morrison’s argument for the following claim in premise-conclusion form for ease of communication.
P1: Power-conferring laws are conditional commands backed by a sovereign.
P2: The conditionality of power-conferring laws does not differentiate them from primary laws, and primary laws being orders backed by threats accounts for the role they play in a legal system.
C: The view power-conferring laws are orders backed by threats accounts for the role they play in a legal system. Here I am going to explain the first premise. Morrison is saying that power-conferring laws create a set of conditions that, when met, create an order to do something that is backed by the power of the state. This …show more content…
He notably accepts Schauer’s first premise, indicating he is truly arguing about the premise itself and not the methodology or purpose of his legal theory. Their definitions of puzzled men are congruent, it being people who turns to the law to determine their behavior for reasons other than a moral code or a fear of sanctions for disobeying. However, he inductively shows in a strong argument that there are many puzzled people using compelling …show more content…
He then proceeds to use tax laws as an example to counter this (p. 4-5). He highlights a statistic Schauer’s uses indicating 54% of people who have the ability to underreport their taxes with little chance of consequence choose to do so, and Schauer suggests the other 46% might fear punishment. However, Hughes offers a different explanation for some of those people, indicating they may be puzzled people, obeying the law for tax codes they may find flawed because it is important to obey the law. Even with the non-coercive nature of this tax law, a significant number of people obeyed the tax laws, highlighting a high potential for a significant number of puzzled men who use the tax laws for
P1: Power-conferring laws are conditional commands backed by a sovereign.
P2: The conditionality of power-conferring laws does not differentiate them from primary laws, and primary laws being orders backed by threats accounts for the role they play in a legal system.
C: The view power-conferring laws are orders backed by threats accounts for the role they play in a legal system. Here I am going to explain the first premise. Morrison is saying that power-conferring laws create a set of conditions that, when met, create an order to do something that is backed by the power of the state. This …show more content…
He notably accepts Schauer’s first premise, indicating he is truly arguing about the premise itself and not the methodology or purpose of his legal theory. Their definitions of puzzled men are congruent, it being people who turns to the law to determine their behavior for reasons other than a moral code or a fear of sanctions for disobeying. However, he inductively shows in a strong argument that there are many puzzled people using compelling …show more content…
He then proceeds to use tax laws as an example to counter this (p. 4-5). He highlights a statistic Schauer’s uses indicating 54% of people who have the ability to underreport their taxes with little chance of consequence choose to do so, and Schauer suggests the other 46% might fear punishment. However, Hughes offers a different explanation for some of those people, indicating they may be puzzled people, obeying the law for tax codes they may find flawed because it is important to obey the law. Even with the non-coercive nature of this tax law, a significant number of people obeyed the tax laws, highlighting a high potential for a significant number of puzzled men who use the tax laws for