Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?

David Enoch*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterpeer-review

16 Scopus citations


This chapter compares general jurisprudence to metaethics, showing how the former is not interesting in the ways the latter is. A major part of what makes metaethics interesting is the full-blooded normativity of morality. The law, however, is not full-bloodedly normative. And while it is formally normative-it generates criteria of correctness-this is not remotely enough to render jurisprudence interesting. The chapter also notes that response-dependence-a highly controversial view in metaethics-is the obvious way to go in jurisprudence, and that general jurisprudential issues are unlikely to have implications for normative legal theory.

Original languageAmerican English
Title of host publicationDimensions of Normativity
Subtitle of host publicationNew Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence
PublisherOxford University Press
Number of pages22
ISBN (Electronic)9780190640408
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2019

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© Oxford University Press 2019. All rights reserved.


  • formal normativity
  • full-blooded normativity
  • jurisprudence
  • legal positivism
  • metaethics
  • normativity
  • normativity of law


Dive into the research topics of 'Is General Jurisprudence Interesting?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this