Abstract
In this paper I examine just what Husak means by "the logical priority thesis", argue that there is less agreement among those putting forward something that might be called a "logical priority thesis" than Husak claims, and offer help in answering a question he ponders: why would anyone accept the logical priority thesis? In connection with the latter, I defend the claim that justifications and excuses are mutually exclusive, excepting cases where the justification or the excuse is partial or borderline, or where for other reasons they are not plainly distinguishable (possibly because the defense is a hybrid).
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 595-609 |
Number of pages | 15 |
Journal | Law and Philosophy |
Volume | 24 |
Issue number | 6 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Nov 2005 |