dc.contributorSautter, Frank Thomas
dc.contributorhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2804652028967760
dc.contributorFonseca, Renato Duarte
dc.contributorhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/9762748021331579
dc.contributorRocha, Ronai Pires da
dc.contributorhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/6507162920508018
dc.contributorGhidolin, Clodoveo
dc.contributorhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/3147142162161654
dc.contributorStruchiner, Noel
dc.contributorhttp://lattes.cnpq.br/8897943441824788
dc.creatorFroehlich, Charles Andrade
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-11T18:48:53Z
dc.date.available2018-07-11T18:48:53Z
dc.date.created2018-07-11T18:48:53Z
dc.date.issued2017-04-07
dc.identifierhttp://repositorio.ufsm.br/handle/1/13750
dc.description.abstractThe present thesis intends to defend, mainly, the possibility of differentiation between Law and Moral proposed by the tradition of legal positivism. In this way, we will defend what is now called ―exclusive legal positivism‖. In a second moment, the ―normative‖ view will be added to this positivism. For contemporary legal positivists, it is true that the separation thesis does not mean that law does not have connections, necessary or not, to morality. What the contemporary legal positivists assert is that the existence and validity of law can not depend on moral criteria. The existence and validity of law depend only on social facts. Which brings us to the question of the sources of law. We will affirm, therefore, that the thesis that conjugates or names legal positivism is the thesis of social sources of law. The separation thesis is at best a sub-thesis of legal positivism. The first chapter deals with the ―Evolution of Legal Positivism‖, seeking to trace a historical course of the debate between law and morals and the characterization and changes of the two main schools of legal thinking: natural law theory and legal positivism. Thus, we begin with the reference to Greek culture and we come to the current debate between inclusivists and exclusivists. The second chapter delves deeper into the first in some ways. It deals specifically with the ―Challenges of Legal Positivism‖, that is, the arguments of its main opponent - Ronald Dworkin - as well as the counter-arguments and renewal of legal positivism in the new currents that have been established: exclusive legal positivism, inclusive legal positivism and (exclusive) normative legal positivism. The third chapter is the broadest and addresses ―The relationship between law and morality‖ from both the analytical and normative perspectives. It seeks from the influences of the first utilitarians on legal positivism, going through the importance of the distinction between positive moral and critical moral and ending with the replacement of the problem of the separation of law and moral in legal positivism. Finally, according to the arguments of exclusive legal positivism, especially the practical difference thesis, we opt for the best formulation that appears in the title of this thesis: the differentiation between law and morality from the sources thesis.
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Santa Maria
dc.publisherBrasil
dc.publisherFilosofia
dc.publisherUFSM
dc.publisherPrograma de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia
dc.publisherCentro de Ciências Sociais e Humanas
dc.rightshttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.subjectDireito
dc.subjectMoral
dc.subjectPositivismo jurídico
dc.subjectPositivismo jurídico exclusivo
dc.subjectPositivismo jurídico inclusivo
dc.subjectPositivismo jurídico normativo
dc.subjectLaw
dc.subjectMorals
dc.subjectLegal positivism
dc.subjectExclusive legal positivism
dc.subjectInclusive legal positivism
dc.subjectNormative positivism
dc.titleA diferenciação entre direito e moral na tradição do positivismo jurídico
dc.typeTese


Este ítem pertenece a la siguiente institución