A.V Lundstedt- Scandinavian Realist

Brief Historical Background of A V Lundstedt Lundstedt (1882-1955) was a Swedish ratified expert and a prop adeptnt of Scandinavian discriminative Realism. He was as well a prof of Law at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, from 1914 to 1952. alike to Haegerstrom, Ross and Olivercrona, he resisted the ex piazza of respectables as metaphysical entities- contending that veryistic legitimate analysis should apportion with much(prenominal) ideology. Beyond being a prominent tort truth scholar, Lundstedt was also a fond democratic appendage of the Swedish Parliament from 1929 to 1948.The body of his hold up can be charmed as an cause to revolutionise the field of jurisprudence by transforming the law into a catalyst for policy-making and social reform. jural Knowledge and juristic Science Lundstedt is regarded by some(prenominal) as the most extreme and buoyant of the Scandinavian realists. Lundstedt guidanced that legal attainment should be cin one caseived of as a real acquisition, and to that end he jilted traditionalistic legal science. His main objection to traditional legal science was that it employed metaphysical fantasys inter alia, duty, duty, wrong doing and guilt.The focal point of his theoretical work was his free burning attacks towards what he preconditioned the order of arbitrator. The method of evaluator is the turn of phrase employ by Lundstedt to bring up traditional legal science, (derived from the traditional method of innate law), which holds that homophile beings ar psyches endowed with legal rights and duties. He was of the good deal that the experimental condition right and other metaphysical concepts employed by traditional legal science, were each(prenominal) illusory concepts that they were naught else simply an intellectual play with expressions of feeling as if something real were designated thereby.Such concepts could not be employ because they did not refer to any rude(a) facts ther efore the terms were devoid of any conceptual core. To cement the sphere of legal knowledge as a bonafide, real science legal science essential be an empirical science, which deals with social facts As a science jurisprudence legal science must be founded on experience, observation of facts and echt connections, and consequently be a natural science. He perceived that terms such as legal order and legal rules are not concepts only when tho empty words that ought to be replaced with the term legal machinery. licit machinery in this vain, is used to denote the psychological factors that determine human demeanour in relation to the use of legal vocabulary. He postulated that legal concepts such as right and duty are also bereft of any conceptual meaning and should be abandoned. Therefore, the legal vocabulary of traditional legal science is to be mum as a matter of use words and noises to cause the appropriate behaviour these words and noises are not concepts which could be said to be the reasons for human conduct.However Lundstedt conceded in his writings that, there are some realities that correspond to the concept of rights- namely, a position of advantage and safety, which is a result of the weak enforcement of certain legal rules and the psychological effects this had on the forelands of passel. In short, because the courts come to ones aid when a person alleges an infringement of a right, a layman is left with the psychological public opinion that his/her right is real because the courts collect want to address the wrong they were done.As discussed earlier, the term right does not designate anything observable, tangible nor anything able of sensory light. One cannot show you their right- and and then Lundstedt argued that a right is a fancied entity. It must be borne in mind that Lundstedts livestock of reasoning is not what is understood by the term rights when reference in legal science nor in the public mind, and therefore he argu ed that it would be better still, to do away with the concept completely.This stringent scientific attitude of Lundstedts , was committed to replacing the magical/metaphysical terms associated with traditional legal science scholarship, with scientific concepts having a basis in earth. In Lundstedts view, the scientific concepts were essentially empirical laws, stating the causal relations amongst the legal words and their effects upon human behaviour. The Method of Social Welfare Lundstedt was of the view that there was no objective mean to define the requirements of justice, and that invocations of justice cloaked purely subjective preferences i. e. he divergences of opinion concerning whether the last penalty is just. Alternatively he argued that such invocations of justice were representations of unacceptable metaphysical claims i. e. in ancient Rome it was believed that the Emperor was the chosen emissary of God. For this reason, Lundstedt endeavoured to replace the m ethod of justice with the method of social returns, in declaration legal problems. The method of social social welfare is premised on social aims- that the aim of all legal activities such as judicial decision making, and the promulgation of legislation should be geared toward benefiting mankind.He emphasised that his notion of social welfare was not a moral or philosophical principle, but that the term should be understood in a descriptive sense representing the actual valuations of masses in night club. He ardently denied that his method of social welfare was in at least way related to the ethical theories of Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill, as his theory was criticised as just another version of utilitarianism. For example, Lundstedt verbalise the aim of punishment is not for revenge, but to maintain a system that is for the benefit of all i. . a system in which a raider is held liable for his damages. Were the purpose of the law to be justice, he opined that it coul d be argued that theft should be condoned if the thief is considerably worse off than the person(s) from whom he stole. (An illustration of why he rejected the concept of justice) Lundstedt argued that the method of social welfare is a scientific approach, as it is premised upon the reality of human needs and wants and that the aforenamed are facts to be known by science.Lundstedt believed that his method should avow and shape legislation as it was centred on the objective study of social conditions, and on the practical effects and capabilities of the law in improving society for all its members. In furthering his views that the law should be used as a vehicle for social reform, Lundstedt used this method as a line of argument against a proposed prohibition law in the 1920s. He was of the view that such a ban would harm the public respect for the law.In the 1930s he once again used his method to advocate for the decriminalization of homosexuality, which was quite a original stanc e to take, taking into account the quantify in which he lived. Lundstedts arguments have been criticised as being not altogether convincing, as he failed to prove that pile generally and truly supported the set he advocated. Moreover, he did not stick out a measure for those situations in which the valuations of people differed greatly. 1 .J Bjarup, The ism of Scandinavian wakeless Realism (2005) 2 . J-O Sundell, Vilhelm Lundstedt- A biographical skeleton , (2010) 3 . supra 4 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Legal Realists,(2009) 5 . T Spaak, Naturalism in Scandinavian and American Realism Similarities and Differences, 6 . above 7 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism (2005) 8 . M freeman & P Mindus, The legacy of John capital of Texass enactment 9 . A. V. Lundstedt, Legal Thinking Revised, (1956) 10 . M Freeman & P Mindus, The legacy of John Austins Jurisprudence, 11 . Supra 12 . M Freeman & P Mindus, The Legacy of John Austins Jurisprudence 13 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Realists,(2009) 14 . Supra 15 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005) 16 . Supra 17 . Some believe that it is the retribution of society that justifies the close penalty, whilst others aver that it is not for mortals to rifle the killer of life.Whichever side of the coin you fall, your perception as to what is just and moreover whether the death penalty is or is not an prejudice depends heavily upon your feelings and values concerning human life. 18 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005) 19 . Supra 20 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Realists,(2009) 21 . Supra 22 . J-O Sundell, Vilhelm Lundstedt- A Biographical Sketch , (2010) 23 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005)