Understood one way, the branch of contemporary philosophical ethics that goes by the label "metaethics" concerns certain second-order questions about ethics—questions not in ethics, but rather ones about our thought and talk about ethics, and how the ethical facts fit into reality.
Analogously, the branch of contemporary philosophy of law that is often called "general jurisprudence" deals with certain second-order questions about law—questions not in the law, but rather ones about our thought and talk about the law, and how legal facts fit into reality. Put more roughly, metaethics concerns a range of foundational questions about ethics, whereas general jurisprudence concerns analogous questions about law.
As these characterizations suggest, the two sub-disciplines have much in common, and could be thought to run parallel to each other. Yet, the connections between the two are currently mostly ignored by philosophers, or at least under-scrutinized. The new essays collected in this volume are aimed at changing this state of affairs.
The volume collects together works by metaethicists and legal philosophers that address a number of issues that are of common interest, with the goal of accomplishing a new rapprochement between metaethics and jurisprudence.
.jpg?1680780797)
