The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 12 (2021), 148-153 p
DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2021-12-25
Havrilyuk S. V. Error both in the general philosophical sense and as a subject of study of legal science
The article focuses on the exploration of philosophical teachings on the concept of «error». Philosophers of antiquity introduced the concept of «natural law», which was formed over the centuries from the human desire to understand the world and to determine our place in society. It was from that time that the concept of human rights gradually began to emerge, and the links between the state and individual and the state and society were established. Error was considered the result of the erroneous course of thought, wrong actions, actions that do not achieve the goal: model of human behavior based on delusions. An error is always aberration: an action opposite of the correct one and committed unintentionally. It always implies illegality. Errors are associated with the wrong course of thought in reasoning, inadequate thinking, misinterpretation and inaccuracy of actions and violation of certain rules. Such fallaciousness of thought and action violates the truth of the substance of thinking and activity and thus leads to various kinds of errors.
It should be indicated that the problem of error has an independent meaning in various fields of scientific knowledge:philosophy, logic, mathematics, law, cybernetics, medicine, linguistics, economics, etc. Through the analysis of the concepts and signs of errors provided by the philosophers mentioned in the article we conclude that error should be considered as both process and result of human activity. In addition, the ambiguous positions of modern legal scholars on the semantic meaning of the terms «error» and «legal error» are highlighted, which often leads to inconsistencies in the conceptual apparatus of modern legal theory. They may interpret the concept of «error» as a shortcoming, a flaw, a mistake, a distortion or in a more categorical way: a delusion, an imperfection, an inconsistency or a gap.
Particular attention is paid to the causes of legal errors, in particular, it is noted that in modern legal science they are divided into objective errors which do not depend on the will and conscious actions of lawmakers and subjective which is generated through the will of lawmakers, as only professional legal activity and its results may be the potential sources of error. The objective causes of legal errors include the constant development of public relations, as the legislator and other legal bodies and institutions do not always keep up with the demands of life. In turn, subjective factors stem from personal qualities, human behavior and actions. In general, legal scholars define legal error as a negative result caused by unintentional, incorrect action of the subject of legal activity and as various accidental and unintentional actions on the course of the decisions of the subjects of legal relations (legal body or public official), which reflects the flaws of the will of the subject of law in the process of expression of such will, leads to a negative result and can be committed at any stage of legal regulation).
Keywords: error, delusion, legal error, erroneous behavior.
References
1. Marks K., Engel’s F. (1964). Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Works: in 50 vol.]. Moscow : Nauka (Gospolitizdat) [in Russian].
2. Arystotel’. (1976-1983). Osnovopolozhenyia lohyky Arystotelia. Metafyzyka Arystotelia. [Fundamentals of Aristotle’slogic. Aristotle’s metaphysics]. In Sochineniia v 4 t. (Vol. 2). Moscow [in Russian].
3. Paton. (1970). Sochineniya: v 3 t. [Works: in 3 vol.]. (Vol. 2). Moskva : Myslʹ [in Russian].
4. Holovatyy S. & Kozyubra M., Syroyid O. (2008). Antolohiya liberalizmu : polityko-pravnychi vchennya ta verkhovenstvo prava [Anthology of liberalism: political and legal doctrines and the rule of law]. Kyiv : «Knyhy dlya biznesu» [in Ukrainian].
5. Kassirer E. & Gurevich P.S. (Ed.) (1988). Opyt o cheloveke [Experience about a person]. In Problema cheloveka v zapadnoy filosofii. Moscow : Progress [in Russian].
6. Yaremenko V. V. & Slipushko O. M. (1999). Novyy tlumachnyy slovnyk ukrayinsʹkoyi movy [New explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. (Vol. 3). Kyiv : «Akonit» [in Ukrainian].
7. Yevhrafova Ye. P. Praktyka vypravlennia zakonotvorchykh pomylok [The practice of correcting legislative errors]. Chasopys tsyvil’noho i kryminal’noho sudochynstva, 2 (29), 116 [in Ukrainian].
8. Naumov A. V. (1996). Ugolovnoye pravo. Obshchaya chast’. Kurs lektsiy [Criminal law. A common part. Lecture course]. Moscow : BEK [in Russian].
9. Selivanov F. A. (1970). Problemy teorii oshibok [Problems of the theory of errors]. Problemy metodologii i logiki nauk. Uchenyye zapiski, 85, 35 [in Russian].
10. Kartashov V. N. (1992). Professional’naya yuridicheskaya deyatel’nost’: voprosy teorii i praktiki [Professional legal activity: questions of theory and practice]. Yaroslavl’ [in Russian].
11. Kalyuzhnyy R. A. (2005). Rymsʹke pryvatne pravo: kurs lektsiy [Roman private law: a course of lectures]. Kyiv : Istyna [in Ukrainian].
12. Onischenko N. M. Do pytannia pro doktrynal’ni iurydychni pomylky : pryroda ta shliakhy podolannia [On the question of doctrinal legal errors: the nature and ways to overcome]. Chasopys tsyvil’noho i kryminal’noho sudochynstva,2 (29) [in Ukrainian].
<< Back
