I.

Introduction: The Need for Philosophy of Law

1. Why is it argued that law is not a self-contained discipline?
- Law is not self-contained because it often encounters problems that cannot be
resolved solely within its own framework. Lawyers and judges must sometimes look to
philosophy to address logical inconsistencies, moral questions, and deeper meanings
that arise in legal contexts.

2. Discuss the role of philosophy in addressing problems that arise within the
law.
- Philosophy provides the tools for critical analysis and logical reasoning, which are
essential for interpreting laws and judicial opinions. It helps clarify concepts such as
justice, rights, and duties, enabling legal practitioners to navigate complex legal issues
more effectively.
3. Who is Immanuel Kant?
He evolutionized the idea that we can never know everything called, “noumena”
because people will always be coming from a position of bias. He argued that
Descartes’ view cannot stand because it is based from an unbiased perspective.
4. What is a first-order discipline versus a second-order discipline as to method?
 First-Order Discipline: This refers to a field that investigates its subject matter
directly. For example, the natural sciences (like biology or physics) are first-order
disciplines because they study the natural world through observation and
experimentation. In law, first-order disciplines would include specific areas of law such
as criminal law, civil law, or constitutional law, which focus on the application and
interpretation of legal rules and principles.
 Second-Order Discipline A.R.C.-M.A.C.-F.I.M.-LangPro-DedLog-ConJust: This
refers to a field that analyzes, critiques, or reflects on the methods, concepts, and
assumptions of first-order disciplines. Philosophy is a prime example of a second-order
discipline because it examines the foundations, implications, and methodologies of
various fields, including science and law. In the context of law, the philosophy of law (or
jurisprudence) is a second-order discipline that explores fundamental questions about
the nature of law, justice, and legal reasoning, rather than focusing on specific legal
cases or statutes.
In summary, first-order disciplines deal with the direct study of their subject matter, while
second-order disciplines provide a reflective and analytical perspective on those
subjects.
5. Aside from perspective, what are the other ways that philosophy of law can be
distinguished from sociology of law?
As to method and purpose. The purpose of sociology is to explain and predict by
investigating law as a social phenomenon in order to understand the world better and
be able to have more control of it. As to method, a sociologist employs the methods of a
scientist, which are empirical, inductive, and experimental. On the other hand, the
methods and purposes of the philosophy of law have been described as metaphysical,
justificatory, conceptual, and normative. (M.J.C.N.)

II.
A. Philosophy in general
1. What is philosophy in general and explain its significance in understanding
fundamental problems. G.A.F.C.
Philosophy is the rational investigation of certain fundamental problems about man
and the world he lives in. Its significance lies in its ability to address general, abstract,
fundamental, and controversial issues that other disciplines may not adequately resolve.

2. Compare and contrast the problem-oriented and method-oriented approaches

to philosophy.
The problem-oriented approach differentiates philosophy from any other disciplines as
to the types of problems it deals with, its subject matter or content. In contrast, the
method-oriented approach emphasizes the rational methods used in philosophical
inquiry, such as the logical analysis of concepts, which has been described as “analytic,
conceptual or linguistic.” L.A.C. The emphasis is on the use of reason.
3. What are the features of a philosophical problem?
It is characterized as general, highly abstract, fundamental, and controversial.
Generality or wideness of scope is contrasted with specificity or particularity in the
sense that philosophy is not concerned with particular things but with objects of general
character, such as a set of pencils, chairs, etc. The more a concept encompasses a
greater number of types of objects, the greater the generality. Abstractness is
contrasted with concreteness. Abstract things are intangible and are capable of being
perceived by the senses such as truth, justice, etc. Fundamental means it must rest on
firm foundations for it to be reliable, if not infallible. Finally, by its very nature a
philosophical problem is controversial as there exists no agreed-up method for
determining the solution to such a problem. It ceases to be philosophical if a right or
wrong answer can be found.
4. When does a system of knowledge ceases to be a part of philosophy?
When the system of knowledge becomes capable of resolution by some sort of
method, it becomes scientific. On the other hand, a system of knowledge is still a part of
philosophy when no accepted method yet exists for determining a right or wrong
answer to questions within that system.
5. What is the similarity and difference of the three ages of philosophy?
The methods employed by each age in solving problems can all be sensibly considered
“rational” in character. Each differs from the other as to its own conception of what
constitutes “reason” or of what reason is capable of.
6. What is the concern of the age of metaphysics?
Philosophers were concerned with Being or with discovering the ultimate reality. It
was believed that philosophers were possessed of a certain type of rational insight
which enabled them to see into the true nature of things. On the other hand, the
ordinary man was only capable of perceiving the world of senses, which was
thought to be illusory.
7. What prompted the shift from the age of metaphysics to the age of
epistemology?
Distrust in the conclusions arrived at by the metaphysical philosophers in the use of
reason ushered the age of epistemology or theory of knowledge. There arose a need to
look into the veracity or truth of the metaphysical philosophers as they arrived at
startling conclusions difficult to believe and disagree among themselves.
8. What were noted during the time of the age of epistemology?
Senses and reason were noted as the limitations of man’s two basic faculties. It
became increasingly accepted that the method of the sciences was the most reliable
one in arriving at knowledge about the world, and not the faculty of reason. The
conclusions arrived at by metaphysical philosophers were considered to be the product
of faulty reasoning or logic, or due to errors of language.
9. What is the ideal language and state of complete exactness? Why was it
abandoned?
A language that would actually mirror the logical structure of reality, and thus
prevent errors in philosophical reasoning. This culminated in the aim of a state of
complete exactness in search for a final analysis and a single completely resolved
form of every expression. It was abandoned for being misguided as it based on a
‘faulty theory of meaning.’
10. What is an ordinary language?
A language which worked or enabled people to fulfill their purposes in life in everyday
activities.
11. What is the therapeutic purpose of ordinary language?
Negative in character, the therapeutic purpose of ordinary language is to help the
philosopher stop making those errors in reasoning which led to absurd
philosophical conclusions.
12. What is the constructive purpose of ordinary language?
The constructive purpose of ordinary language is positive in character, which involves
an analysis of language so whatever philosophical conclusions philosophers make are
at least guided by the analysis as to hopefully be error-free or validly generated.
13. What is another constructive purpose of ordinary language?
It involves the use of rational justification.
14. What is the job of the philosopher?
The philosopher interprets the data gathered by the scientist to arrive at novel and more
startling conclusions about the world. He is not engaged in discovering more information
about the world but he interprets this newly-discovered information of the scientist so as
to make better sense of the world.
15. What is the method of philosophy as distinguished from religion?
According to religion there are some truths which are simply beyond the human
comprehension and are thus unknowable. It places ultimate importance on the role
of faith as a source of knowledge which is not necessarily warranted by reason but are
nevertheless true and to be ultimately accepted as a matter of faith. In contrast, the
philosopher is concerned basically with the extent of knowledge that can be
warranted by reason. In so far as truths cannot be warranted, not necessarily untrue,
nevertheless cannot be justified philosophically.
16. What is the distinction of a philosopher as to purpose and perspective?
In contrast with the scientist, who is content with the what and how of things, the
philosopher, as to purpose, is interested in the why of things, the ultimate nature and
purpose of the universe, questions of value such as the rightness and wrongness of
things.
As to perspective, both share the external viewpoint but unlike the sociologist that
merely looks at law outside it, the philosopher has a superior perspective and views
law from above.
17. What is philosophy as a second-order discipline?
As a second-order discipline, philosophy is concerned with fundamental or
foundational questions concerning the first-order discipline it investigates. It
determines whether scientific assumptions about truth, meaning, knowledge, and value
satisfy philosophical requirements.

B. Philosophy of law
Jurisprudence
1. What is jurisprudence?
It originally meant knowledge of or skill of law, from the Latin prudential (prudence,
practical knowledge or skill) and juris (law). It also meant case law (a body of law built
up by the decisions of particular courts).
2. What is the type of jurisprudence of interest? P.N.D COMMON
General or universal jurisprudence (contrasted with particular or national
jurisprudence-the science of any actual system of law) as described by Austin, which is
concerned with the study of the principles, notions, and distinctions COMMON to
various legal systems, and forming analogies or likeness by which such systems
are allied.
In other words, general or universal jurisprudence investigates what is COMMON to
systems of law, the SHARED FEATURES of actual legal systems like the Philippines,
China and any other country.
3. What is the second character of jurisprudence that lead to various approaches
to jurisprudential study?
A course on jurisprudence is characterized by its interdisciplinary character or the
LINKAGE OF LAW with other disciplines. To investigate what is shared by various
legal systems, an external perspective should be adopted.
4. What is analytic jurisprudence? F.S.L
It focuses on the form, structure, and logical relations of law and legal concepts,
rather than on its specific content.
5. What is Professor Jerome Hall’s jurisprudence?
Integrative jurisprudence, which provides a comprehensive field of knowledge
within which all juristic approaches could find their proper place and by taking account
all significant aspects of legal problems, it alone could satisfy the criteria of an
adequate jurisprudence.
6. What are the two characteristics of jurisprudence?
The study of what is COMMON to various legal systems and the LINKAGE of law with
other disciplines.
7. What is jurisprudence concerned of?
It is concerned with general speculations of ALL KINDS about the law or thoughts
about law on the BROADEST possible basis so as to bring the interrelation between
law and other disciplines.
8. What is jurisprudence in its narrow sense?
In its narrow sense, jurisprudence is the knowledge of law as a science, combined
with the art or practical habit of applying it.
9. What is legislation (term by Austin) or censorial jurisprudence (Bentham)?
Legislation deals with not just law as it is, but also the science of what ought to be
done towards making good laws, combined with the art of doing it.
10. What is jurisprudence in its wide sense?
Jurisprudence in its wide sense is the combination of the narrow sense and
legislation, which include the science of what is essential to law combined with the
science of what ought to be since the knowledge of what ought to be presupposes the
knowledge of what is.

Legal Theory
What is legal theory (law as it is) in its narrow sense?
In its narrow sense, legal theory is an aspect of jurisprudence as it describes those
features that are most significant in distinguishing law from non-law or legal from
other systems of social organization.
What is the difference between law, jurisprudence, and legal theory?

#### B. Philosophy of Law

1. What distinguishes the philosophy of law from sociology of law?
- The philosophy of law examines foundational questions about the nature, purpose,
and validity of law from a higher, analytical perspective, while sociology of law studies
law as a social phenomenon, focusing on its effects and functions within society.

2. Discuss the importance of jurisprudence in the study of law.

- Jurisprudence is crucial as it provides a theoretical framework for understanding
legal principles and concepts. It helps in analyzing the nature of law, its relationship with
morality, and the underlying philosophical questions that inform legal systems.

### III. On Law

#### A. The Nature of Law
1. How does the article define "law"? Discuss the implications of this definition.
- The article defines law as a system of rules and principles that govern behavior
within a society. This definition implies that law is not merely a set of commands but is
also deeply connected to moral and ethical considerations, reflecting societal values.

2. What are the different kinds of law mentioned, and how do they differ from one
another?
- The article discusses various kinds of law, including descriptive laws (which describe
regularities in behavior) and prescriptive laws (which prescribe actions). Descriptive
laws are factual statements about how things are, while prescriptive laws dictate how
things ought to be.

#### B. The Analytic Approach

1. Explain the analytic approach to understanding legal concepts.
- The analytic approach involves breaking down legal concepts into their fundamental
components to clarify their meanings and implications. This method helps identify
logical relationships and inconsistencies within legal reasoning.

2. How does conceptual analysis contribute to the understanding of legal phenomena?

- Conceptual analysis allows for a deeper examination of legal terms and principles,
revealing underlying assumptions and clarifying ambiguities. This process enhances the
understanding of how legal concepts function in practice and their implications for
justice and morality.

### IV. On Relevance

1. Discuss the relevance of philosophical inquiry for both philosophers and lawyers.
 - For philosophers, the study of law enriches their understanding of social and political
issues. For lawyers, philosophical inquiry enhances their analytical skills and deepens
their understanding of normative issues, ultimately improving their legal practice.

2. How can a deeper understanding of normative issues in law contribute to a lawyer's

effectiveness?
- A deeper understanding of normative issues, such as justice and moral obligations,
equips lawyers to argue more persuasively and ethically. It allows them to navigate
complex legal dilemmas with a clearer sense of purpose and responsibility.

### V. Conclusion
1. Summarize the key arguments made in the article regarding the relevance of
philosophy to law.
- The article argues that philosophy is essential for understanding and interpreting
law, as it provides the necessary tools for critical analysis and moral reasoning.
Philosophy clarifies complex legal concepts and addresses foundational questions that
arise in legal practice.

2. Reflect on how the integration of philosophical principles can enhance legal practice.
- Integrating philosophical principles into legal practice fosters a more comprehensive
understanding of law, encouraging lawyers to consider ethical implications and societal
values. This holistic approach can lead to more just and equitable legal outcomes.

II. State of Nature

1. What is the Hobbesian fallacy?
The Hobbesian fallacy refers to the assumption made by state-of-nature theorists,
particularly Thomas Hobbes, that human beings were originally isolated individuals who
later formed societies through rational calculations. This perspective suggests that
society is an artifice created to achieve individual ends.
Critics argue that this view overlooks evidence from biology and anthropology, which
indicates that humans have always been social creatures. The fallacy implies that
individualism is a primordial state, while in reality, sociability and communal instincts are
inherent to human nature. This critique emphasizes that individualism developed later,
shaped by historical and environmental factors, rather than being a fundamental aspect
of human existence.

2. As a modern Aristotlean, how would you disagree the Hobbesian fallacy?

As a modern Aristotelian, one would disagree with the Hobbesian fallacy by
emphasizing the intrinsic social nature of human beings. Here are some key points to
support this perspective:
 Humans as Political Animals: Aristotle argued that humans are "political animals"
by nature, meaning that our natural capacities incline us to live in communities and
engage in social relationships. This contrasts with Hobbes's view of humans as isolated
individuals who only come together for self-preservation.
 Natural Sociability: Modern Aristotelians would assert that sociability is a
fundamental aspect of human nature. Unlike Hobbes's depiction of a state of nature
characterized by fear and competition, Aristotle believed that humans naturally seek
companionship and cooperation, which fosters a sense of community and belonging.
 The Role of Virtue: Aristotle emphasized the importance of virtue and moral
development within a community. He believed that individuals achieve their full potential
through participation in social and political life, which is contrary to the Hobbesian view
that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest.
 Historical Context: The Hobbesian fallacy assumes a non-historic view of human
development, suggesting that humans were once isolated and only later formed
societies. Modern Aristotelians would argue that human beings have always existed in
social contexts, and our evolutionary history supports the idea of communal living as a
natural state.
 Empirical Evidence: Contemporary research in anthropology and biology supports
the notion that early humans lived in social groups, exhibiting cooperative behaviors.
This evidence contradicts the Hobbesian notion of a solitary, brutish existence in the
state of nature.
In summary, a modern Aristotelian would argue that the Hobbesian fallacy
misrepresents human nature by ignoring our inherent sociability and the importance of
community in achieving human flourishing.