As To a Pure Formula: Responses to Criticisms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52292/j.dsc.2026.5453Keywords:
Positivist Weight Formula, Matrices of Balancing, Specificationism, BalancingAbstract
This paper contains the responses to the criticisms made in this volume to “The Positivist Weight Formula”. Broadly speaking, the main pillars of the original paper are reaffirmed, and it is additionally stressed that criticisms directed to the content of proportionality (instead of criticisms directed to the propositions presented about that content) are somehow beyond the point. Besides a new critical analysis of “Specificationism”, the paper also contains, in what concerns the incommensurability issue, matrices of balancing, trying to show that measuring gains and losses in the satisfaction of norms can be done under a comparative rational basis.
Downloads
References
Duarte, D. (2026). Una Vez Más: La Fórmula Positivista del Peso. Discusiones, 36(1), 23-56.
Duarte, D. (2021). From constitutional discretion to the positivist weight formula. En J. Sieckmann (ed.), Proportionality, balancing, and rights: Robert Alexy’s theory of constitutional rights (pp. 21–73). Cham: Springer.
Kelsen, H. (1966). On the Pure Theory of Law. Israel Law Review, I (1), 1-7.
Klatt, M. y Schmidt, J. (2012). Epistemic Discretion in Constitutional Law. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10, 69-105.
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 14, 5-56.
Lindahl, L. (2009). On Robert Alexy’s weight formula for weighing and balancing. En J. A. Raposo, J. Lopes Alves, P. de Sousa Mendes, A. Silva Dias, y L. Duarte D’Almeida (eds.), Liber Amicorum de José de Sousa e Brito: em comemoraçaõ do 70.o aniversário; estudos de direito e filosofia (pp. 355-376). Coimbra: Almedina.
Maranhão, J. y Sgarbi, J. (2026). Comentarios a “Una Vez Más: La Fórmula Positivista del Peso” de Duarte. Discusiones, 36(1), 119-131.
Mendonca, D. (2017). Rights, reasons, and emotion: Conflict and balance of rights. En M. Sellers (ed.), Law, reason and emotion (pp. 138–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moreso, J. J. (2026). Ponderación en la Escuela de Lisboa. Sobre el Planteamiento de David Duarte. Discusiones, 36(1), 57-85.
Moreso, J. (2012). Ways of Solving Conflicts of Constitutional Rights: Proportionalism and Specificationism. Ratio Juris. 25(1), 31-46.
Sampaio, J. (2026). Los Límites Conceptuales de la Fórmula Positivista del Peso de David Duarte y el Modo de las Razones como Alternativa. Discusiones, 36(1), 149-195.
Segatti, M. (2026). Prioridad a la Libertad, Dinámicas Inter-temporales y Heterogeneidad de los Intereses en la Ponderación. Discusiones, 36(1), 133-147.
Stevens, S. (1946). On The Theory of Scales of Measurement. Science, 103(2884), 677-680.
Valentini, C. (2026). El Sentido de la Proporcionalidad. Discusiones, 36(1), 197-215.
Wu, H. y Leung, S. (2017). Can Likert Scales Be Treated as Interval Scales. Journal of Social Service Research. 43, 527-532.
García Yzaguirre, V. (2026). La Ponderación de Duarte. Comentarios y Dudas. Discusiones, 36(1), 87-117.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 David Duarte
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Discusiones does not withhold rights of reproduction or copyright. Consequently, authors may share the final versions of publications.
