Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 16, 2022
Accepted
Aug 19, 2022
Published
Aug 19, 2022
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 1072 Download : 1571

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengkaji makna keadilan dalam perspektif filsafat hukum aliran utilitarianisme dan positivisme; serta menelaah makna ‘benar’ dan ‘adil’ dalam kacamata filsafat hukum. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum dengan menggunakan pendekatan konseptual dan perbandingan; sebagaimana mengkaji isu hukum menggunakan sudut pandang utilitarianisme dan positivisme. Bahan hukum yang digunakan sebagai referensi penelitian adalah bahan hukum dan bahan non-hukum. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sudut pandang utilitarianisme memandang keadilan dan kebahagiaan sebagai orientasi utama; sehingga, aliran utilitarianisme justru memberikan ruang kepada pemutus hukum untuk mempertimbangkan konsekuensi positif dari suatu perbuatan kejahatan. Sedangkan dalam perspektif positivisme, keadilan dianggap sebagai tujuan utama dari hukum; sebagaimana dilatar belakangi oleh pandangan penganut aliran positivisme yang menyatakan makna keadilan sebenarnya adalah manakala keadilan yang tertinggi adalah ketidakadilan yang tertinggi pula. Kemudian, ‘benar’ dan ‘adil’ dalam pandangan utilitarianisme dan positivism menyatakan bahwa suatu hukum dapat dikatakan adil bila memenuhi unsur konstitutif hukum, bukan hanya unsur regulatif hukum semata (adanya peraturan perundang-undangan tertulis).

Keywords

Keadilan, Utilitarianisme, Positivisme Justice Utilitarianism Positivism

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

1. Hak cipta atas artikel apa pun dipegang oleh penulisnya.
2. Penulis memberikan jurnal, hak publikasi pertama dengan karya yang dilisensikan secara bersamaan di bawah Lisensi Atribusi Creative Commons yang memungkinkan orang lain untuk membagikan karya dengan pengakuan atas kepenulisan dan publikasi awal karya tersebut dalam jurnal ini.
3. Penulis dapat membuat pengaturan kontrak tambahan yang terpisah untuk distribusi non-eksklusif dari versi jurnal yang diterbitkan dari karya tersebut (misalnya, mempostingnya ke repositori institusional atau menerbitkannya dalam sebuah buku), dengan pengakuan dari publikasi awalnya di jurnal ini.
4. Penulis diizinkan dan didorong untuk memposting karya mereka secara online (misalnya, di repositori institusional atau di situs web mereka) sebelum dan selama proses pengiriman, karena hal itu dapat mengarah pada pertukaran yang produktif, serta kutipan yang lebih awal dan lebih besar dari karya yang diterbitkan.
5. Artikel dan materi terkait yang diterbitkan didistribusikan di bawah Lisensi Internasional Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0

How to Cite
Endratno, C. (2022). Refleksi Filsafat Hukum: Telaah Sintesa Keadilan. Yustitiabelen, 8(2), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.36563/yustitiabelen.v8i2.555
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Augustine, A. (2017). THE CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE IN ARISTOTLE ’ S PHILOSOPHY : IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIO- POLITCAL LIFE IN NIGERIA, XX(2), 155–169.
  2. Brouwer, R. (2021). Law and Philosophy in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Collard, D. (2006). Research on Well-Being. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(3), 330–354. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0048393106289795
  4. Dickinson, L. A. (2020). The Rule of Law Under Siege, but Which Rule of Law? Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12(1), 195–204. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40803-020-00135-1
  5. Disantara, F. P. (2021). Perspektif Keadilan Bermartabat dalam Paradoks Etika dan Hukum. Jurnal Litigasi, 22(2), 205–229.
  6. Dworkin, R. (1994). Law, Philosophy and Interpretation. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 80(4), 463–475.
  7. Efendi, J., & Ibrahim, J. (2018). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Normatif dan Empiris (Pertama.). Depok: Prenadamedia Group. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=5OZeDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Metode+Penelitian+Hukum:+Normatif+dan+Empiris&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1sumo86PmAhXkzzgGHZiSDq0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Metode Penelitian Hukum%3A Normatif dan Empiris&f=false
  8. Fios, F. (2012). Keadilan Hukum Jeremy Bentham dan Relevansinya bagi Praktik Hukum Kontemporer. Humaniora, 3(1), 299. Retrieved from https://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/Humaniora/article/view/3315
  9. Fried, C. (1998). Philosophy Matters. Harvard Law Review, 111(7), 1739. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342479?origin=crossref
  10. Friedmann, W. (1961). Legal Philosophy and Judicial Lawmaking. Columbia Law Review, 61(5), 821. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120096?origin=crossref
  11. Horn, C. (2020). Aristotle on the Legal and Moral Aspects of Law. Ethics in Ancient Greek Literature (pp. 81–100). De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110699616-005/html
  12. HOROWITZ, D. L. (1997). SELF-DETERMINATION: POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, AND LAW. Nomos, 39, 421–463.
  13. Husik, I. (1924). The Legal Philosophy of Rudolph Stammler. Columbia Law Review, 24(4), 373. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1114196?origin=crossref
  14. Jacobs, S. (1990). Bentham, science and the construction of jurisprudence. History of European Ideas, 12(5), 583–594. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/0191-6599%2890%2990173-C
  15. Johnson, L. D., & Koenig, M. L. (2020). Walk the Line: Aristotle and the Ethics of Narrative. Nevada Law Journal, 20(3), 1039–1074.
  16. Kelly, P. J. (1989). Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: The Civil Law and the Foundations of Bentham’s Economic Thought. Utilitas, 1(1), 62–81. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820800000066/type/journal_article
  17. Kolosov, I. V., & Sigalov, K. E. (2020). WAS J. BENTHAM THE FIRST LEGAL UTILITARIAN? RUDN Journal of Law, 24(2), 438–471. Retrieved from http://journals.rudn.ru/law/article/view/23941
  18. Kramer, M. H. (2004). Responsibility in Law and Morality. Philosophical Review, 113(1), 133–135. Retrieved from https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philosophical-review/article/113/1/133-135/2623
  19. Latipulhayat, A. (2015). Jeremy Bentham. PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 2(2), 413–424. Retrieved from http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7342
  20. Marshall, J. B. (1974). PHILOSOPHY AND LAW. Jurimetrics Journal, 14(3), 171.
  21. Moll, W. L., & Stammler, R. (1926). The Theory of Justice. Harvard Law Review.
  22. Naffine, N., & Owens, R. (2019). Intention in Law and Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge.
  23. Patterson, D. (2018). Theoretical Disagreement, Legal Positivism, and Interpretation. Ratio Juris, 31(3), 260–275. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/raju.12216
  24. Paulson, S. L. (1994). Lon L. Fuller, Gustav Radbruch, and the “Positivist” Theses. Law and Philosophy, 13(3), 313. Retrieved from http://www.crossref.org/deleted_DOI.html
  25. Pound, R. (1905). Do We Need a Philosophy of Law? Columbia Law Review, 5(5), 339. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1109546?origin=crossref
  26. Radbruch, G. (2006). Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqi041
  27. Radbruch, Gustav. (2020). Law’s Image of the Human. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(4), 667–681. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/4/667/5927578
  28. Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples: With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  29. Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  30. Sheppard, S. (1998). The Perfectionisms of John Rawls. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11(2), 383–415. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0841820900002058/type/journal_article
  31. Summers, R. S. (1963). `Is’ and `Ought’ in Legal Philosophy. The Philosophical Quarterly, 13(51), 157. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/2217191
  32. Tan, S. H. (2021). Radbruch’s Formula Revisited: The Lex Injusta Non Est Lex Maxim in Constitutional Democracies. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 34(2), 461–491. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0841820921000126/type/journal_article
  33. Tasioulas, J. (Ed.). (2020). The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Twining, W. (2019). Bentham’s Theory of Evidence: Setting a Context. Journal of Bentham Studies, 18(1), 20–37. Retrieved from https://scienceopen.com/document?vid=72c80ce1-6261-4b9e-afe8-0663589607c9
  35. Augustine, A. (2017). THE CONCEPTS OF JUSTICE IN ARISTOTLE ’ S PHILOSOPHY : IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIO- POLITCAL LIFE IN NIGERIA, XX(2), 155–169.
  36. Brouwer, R. (2021). Law and Philosophy in the Late Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Collard, D. (2006). Research on Well-Being. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 36(3), 330–354. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0048393106289795
  38. Dickinson, L. A. (2020). The Rule of Law Under Siege, but Which Rule of Law? Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 12(1), 195–204. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40803-020-00135-1
  39. Disantara, F. P. (2021). Perspektif Keadilan Bermartabat dalam Paradoks Etika dan Hukum. Jurnal Litigasi, 22(2), 205–229.
  40. Dworkin, R. (1994). Law, Philosophy and Interpretation. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 80(4), 463–475.
  41. Efendi, J., & Ibrahim, J. (2018). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Normatif dan Empiris (Pertama.). Depok: Prenadamedia Group. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=5OZeDwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Metode+Penelitian+Hukum:+Normatif+dan+Empiris&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1sumo86PmAhXkzzgGHZiSDq0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Metode Penelitian Hukum%3A Normatif dan Empiris&f=false
  42. Fios, F. (2012). Keadilan Hukum Jeremy Bentham dan Relevansinya bagi Praktik Hukum Kontemporer. Humaniora, 3(1), 299. Retrieved from https://journal.binus.ac.id/index.php/Humaniora/article/view/3315
  43. Fried, C. (1998). Philosophy Matters. Harvard Law Review, 111(7), 1739. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1342479?origin=crossref
  44. Friedmann, W. (1961). Legal Philosophy and Judicial Lawmaking. Columbia Law Review, 61(5), 821. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1120096?origin=crossref
  45. Horn, C. (2020). Aristotle on the Legal and Moral Aspects of Law. Ethics in Ancient Greek Literature (pp. 81–100). De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110699616-005/html
  46. HOROWITZ, D. L. (1997). SELF-DETERMINATION: POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, AND LAW. Nomos, 39, 421–463.
  47. Husik, I. (1924). The Legal Philosophy of Rudolph Stammler. Columbia Law Review, 24(4), 373. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1114196?origin=crossref
  48. Jacobs, S. (1990). Bentham, science and the construction of jurisprudence. History of European Ideas, 12(5), 583–594. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1016/0191-6599%2890%2990173-C
  49. Johnson, L. D., & Koenig, M. L. (2020). Walk the Line: Aristotle and the Ethics of Narrative. Nevada Law Journal, 20(3), 1039–1074.
  50. Kelly, P. J. (1989). Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: The Civil Law and the Foundations of Bentham’s Economic Thought. Utilitas, 1(1), 62–81. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0953820800000066/type/journal_article
  51. Kolosov, I. V., & Sigalov, K. E. (2020). WAS J. BENTHAM THE FIRST LEGAL UTILITARIAN? RUDN Journal of Law, 24(2), 438–471. Retrieved from http://journals.rudn.ru/law/article/view/23941
  52. Kramer, M. H. (2004). Responsibility in Law and Morality. Philosophical Review, 113(1), 133–135. Retrieved from https://read.dukeupress.edu/the-philosophical-review/article/113/1/133-135/2623
  53. Latipulhayat, A. (2015). Jeremy Bentham. PADJADJARAN Jurnal Ilmu Hukum (Journal of Law), 2(2), 413–424. Retrieved from http://jurnal.unpad.ac.id/pjih/article/view/7342
  54. Marshall, J. B. (1974). PHILOSOPHY AND LAW. Jurimetrics Journal, 14(3), 171.
  55. Moll, W. L., & Stammler, R. (1926). The Theory of Justice. Harvard Law Review.
  56. Naffine, N., & Owens, R. (2019). Intention in Law and Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge.
  57. Patterson, D. (2018). Theoretical Disagreement, Legal Positivism, and Interpretation. Ratio Juris, 31(3), 260–275. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/raju.12216
  58. Paulson, S. L. (1994). Lon L. Fuller, Gustav Radbruch, and the “Positivist” Theses. Law and Philosophy, 13(3), 313. Retrieved from http://www.crossref.org/deleted_DOI.html
  59. Pound, R. (1905). Do We Need a Philosophy of Law? Columbia Law Review, 5(5), 339. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1109546?origin=crossref
  60. Radbruch, G. (2006). Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law (1946). Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/ojls/gqi041
  61. Radbruch, Gustav. (2020). Law’s Image of the Human. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 40(4), 667–681. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/40/4/667/5927578
  62. Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples: With “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  63. Rawls, J. (2005). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  64. Sheppard, S. (1998). The Perfectionisms of John Rawls. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 11(2), 383–415. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0841820900002058/type/journal_article
  65. Summers, R. S. (1963). `Is’ and `Ought’ in Legal Philosophy. The Philosophical Quarterly, 13(51), 157. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/pq/article-lookup/doi/10.2307/2217191
  66. Tan, S. H. (2021). Radbruch’s Formula Revisited: The Lex Injusta Non Est Lex Maxim in Constitutional Democracies. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 34(2), 461–491. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0841820921000126/type/journal_article
  67. Tasioulas, J. (Ed.). (2020). The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Twining, W. (2019). Bentham’s Theory of Evidence: Setting a Context. Journal of Bentham Studies, 18(1), 20–37. Retrieved from https://scienceopen.com/document?vid=72c80ce1-6261-4b9e-afe8-0663589607c9

DB Error: Unknown column 'Array' in 'where clause'