As you'd ended up arguing that the rule can be both x and not-x in the same system, and were quoting chunks of Raz at me trying to support that proposition, I consider that wise.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Anyway, suppose parliament passes one rule "Arrest Clark Kent" and another rule saying "Don't arrest Superman". Seems like a case where you might have Rule(X) and Rule(~X) to me as a matter of positive law, not a possibility to be ruled out a priori.
Of course (that's what logicians call contraries and incompatibles respectively). The resulting content of the law will be different. But each pair may exist in a given legal system.
The most problematic pair is must x / non must X (contradiction). Being a subvaluationist, I think that truth-value gluts are possible. Some may disagree. But again that is orthogonal to the issue.
So a clash between an obligatory and permissive rule? Yeah that's tricky but I like the idea it makes for a disjunctive obligation to X or ~X (i.e. in this case a permission)
Comments
I can send you more complete reference list if you're interested :D