Criticism

Scandinavian realism, which contends that there should be factual basis for the legal
concepts, has been criticized because of the armchair speculation because of the lack
of the methodology to enquire into these facts. This despite of its psychological
orientation to explain the behavior of the people towards legal concepts imposed upon
them. The result of this shortcoming is the development of its own neo metaphysics in
the search of its own essential characteristic of law. !nother criticism against the
Scandinavian "egal #ealism, is the group$s contention that words do not provide for a
legal basis. %ut words are more than the emotions but have a generally accepted
meaning. ! case in point would be the word &ustice, which was characterized as
meaningless. The proponents of this movement have failed to take into account the
rational significance of the term and the history of the powerful movements for social
and legal reform based on this term. 'n relation to this, the notion of wordmagic has
little significance to present day (urisprudence. "egal words of today only refer to the
conferment of rights and interests. The concept that rights create a feeling of power is a
sub(ective interpretation since statutory laws do not create such feeling. "astly, the
notion that law creates morality is contrary to historical evidence. )ne example is the
conscious efforts of the state to prevent immoral acts have brought about the
promulgation of laws. This is in line with the educative function of law.
"undstedt follows *+gerstr,m$s emotive theory and advances the method of social
welfare in terms of social aims as opposed to the method of (ustice in terms of right
and duties for the critique of the positive law. This meets with critique from #oss
since "undstedt$s method is another version of utilitarianism which is false, and
besides it presupposes that there is moral knowledge which #oss re(ects, endorsing
*+gerstr,m$s moral scepticism. "undstedt retorts that his view has the support of
*+gerstr,m and #oss$s replies that "undstedt is not a philosopher. The battle
between them is in the end about who is to count as leader of the Scandinavian
realists. )livecrona follows *+gerstr,m to hold that that evaluation of the law is not a
scientific matter. This is also #oss$s view although he shifts his allegiance to Charles
Stevenson to support an emotive theory of ethics.