Positivismo jurídico y falacia naturalista

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explain the relationship among naturalistic fallacy, empiricist tradition and Legal Positivism. From an empiricist point of view, it is not possible to derive evaluative statements from descriptive statements. In philosophy, this meta-theoretical requirement is called Hume’s Guillotine. Such request presupposes a fact/value metaphysical dualism. From this perspective, morality is not an object of reason: values are subjective and arbitrary. However, this model has a lot of problems. Commitments, epistemic values, thick ethical concepts and desire-independent reasons for action are some counter-examples to that empiricist picture. In fact, description and evaluation are linked and interdependent.