Available in Russian
Author: Andrey Rumyantsev
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2025-4-18-51
Keywords: Hume’s principle; autonomous morality; neo-Kantianism; natural law; legal positivism; methodology of science; climate change; karyotype; pandemic
The article examines the mechanisms of decision-making by setting norms and rules, with a special emphasis on the use of scientific data. At the start, the article outlines some theoretical issues of obtaining legal norms. Next, a number of contemporary problems are considered, the solution of which has a normative dimension. In philosophy, it is regarded impossible to derive normative statements based solely on descriptive (empirical) statements (Hume’s principle). In order for such a conclusion to be logically acceptable, there must be at least one normative sentence among the premises. One of the two most important legal concepts, namely natural law, contradicts this rule. On the contrary, positive law, which allows for different forms of obtaining and substantiating its norms, can fulfill it. When using scientific data to determine a legal prescription, Hume’s principle requires that at least one normative premise be introduced in addition to empirical ones. In the courts, this is done by combining the rules of procedural and substantive law with facts relevant to a particular case. The political legislator has a broader freedom in determining how he creates new norms. Here, ideological considerations may become a necessary normative premise that ensures the fulfillment of Hume’s principle, especially in the absence of other arguments. The use of scientific data in rulemaking requires taking into account the features of scientific knowledge, which is transitory and can potentially be refuted. Goal setting plays a crucial role in making regulatory decisions. Thus, responses to current climate change depend not on the causes of this, but on an assessment of the consequences, which in turn depends on the goals that the adopted norms should serve. The legal framework for the gender structure of society also depends mainly on the goals that are expected to be achieved. Biological properties have an indirect effect on regulation. The article pays special attention to the events in Germany related to the adoption and judicial review in several lawsuits of the legally established mandatory vaccination of members of a number of professions, which was in effect during the pandemic. It turned out that the connection between science and politics was circular: the German government exerted covert pressure on science, demanding certain assertions from it, on the basis of which laws were passed. The true motivations of the Government remained unknown. It is only obvious that this was not knowledge obtained by independent science. This story is well documented. The conclusions obtained on the basis of its study can be generalized.
About the author: Andrey Rumyantsev – Dr. jur. (Regensburg), Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the journal “Comparative constitutional review”, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Rumyantsev A. (2025) Nauka i tselepolaganie v pravotvorchestve: raznye funktsii pri reshenii obshchey zadachi [Science and goal-setting in lawmaking: different functions in doing a common task]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.4, pp.18–51. (In Russian).
References
Alekseev G.V. (2023) Poteplenie klimata Arktiki: raskhozhdeniya mezhdu global'nymi modelyami klimata i nablyudeniyami i vozmozhnye prichiny [Arctic climate warming: discrepancies between global climate models and observations and possible causes]. Gidrometeorologiya i Ekologiya, no.71, pp.207–230. (In Russian).
Beldecos A. et al. (1988) The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, vol.3, no.1, pp.61–76.
Berger P.L., Luckmann T. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in Sociology of Knowledge, London: Penguin Books.
Bethge H. (2024) Art.5. In: Sachs M. Grundgesetz-Kommentar, Ch. v. Coelln, Th.Mann (eds.), 10th ed., München: C.H. Beck, pp.276–350.
Blankenagel A. (2022) K voprosu o konstitutsionnosti vseobshchey obyazatel'noy vaktsinatsii ot COVID-19: analiz s tochki zreniya nemetskogo prava [On the question of the constitutionality of universal mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: an analysis from the perspective of German law]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.31, no.2, pp.43–66. (In Russian).
Boiko I.B. (2012) “Ogranichennaya” vmenyaemost' i ee sootnesenie so st.22 UK RF [“Limited” sanity and its correlation with Article 22 of the Criminal Code]. Vestnik yuridicheskogo fakul'teta Kolomenskogo instituta (filiala) GOU VPO MGOU im. V.S.Chernomyrdina, no.7, pp.71–78. (In Russian).
Buss D.M. (2012) Evolutionary Psychology, 4th ed., Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon [Pearson].
Butler J.P. (1999) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, London; New York: Routledge.
Di Lucia P., Fittipaldi E. (eds.) (2021) Revisiting Searle on Deriving “Ought” from “Is”, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan [Springer Nature Switzerland].
Gehlen A. (1957) Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter: sozialpsychologische Probleme in der industriellen Gesellschaft, Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Hume D. (1740) A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects, London: John Noon.
Kelsen H. (1934) Reine Rechtslehre: Einleitung in die rechtswissenschaftliche Problematik, Leipzig; Wien: Franz Deuticke.
Kelsen H. (1960) Reine Rechtslehre, 2nd ed., Wien: Franz Deuticke.
Kelsen H. (1989) Die Idee des Naturrechts. In: Kelsen H. Staat und Naturrecht: Aufsätze zur Ideologiekritik, Topitsch E. (ed.), 2nd ed., München: Fink, pp.73–113.
Kuhn Th.S. (1977) Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice. In: Kuhn Th.S. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago, IL; London: The University of Chicago Press, pp.320–339.
Larenz K. (1935) Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie der Gegenwart, 2nd ed., Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt.
Laudan L. (1996) Nauka i tsennosti [Science and Values]. In: Pechenkin A.A. (ed.) Sovremennaya filosofiya nauki: znanie, ratsional'nost', tsennosti v trudakh myslitelney Zapada [The contemporary philosophy of science: knowledge, rationality and values in works of Western thinkers], 2nd ed., Moscow: Logos, pp.295–342. (In Russian).
LeClair R.J. (2021). Cell Biology, Genetics, and Biochemistry for Pre-Clinical Students, Roanoke, VA: Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine.
Leisinger K.M. (2000) Die sechste Milliarde: Weltbevölkerung und nachhaltige Entwicklung, 2nd ed., München: C.H. Beck.
Lind J.A. (1772) Treatise on the Scurvy. Containing an Inquiry into the Nature, Causes, and Cure, of that Disease. Together with a Critical and Chronological View of what has been published on the Subject, 3rd ed., London: S.Crowder et al.
Maloney Ch.M. et al. (2025) Investigating the Potential Atmospheric Accumulation and Radiative Impact of the Coming Increase in Satellite Reentry Frequency, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol.130, no.6. Available at: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024JD042442 (accessed: 03.12.2025).
Manzhosov S. (2025) Smertnaya kazn' v Rossii v svete teoriy originalizma i zhivoy konstitutsii [The death penalty in Russia through the lens of the theories of originalism and living constitution]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.2, pp.177–200. (In Russian).
Meadows D. et al. (1972) The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. URL: https://www.library.dartmouth.edu/digital/digital-collections/limits-growth (accessed: 03.12.2025).
Merkl A. (1923) Die Lehre von der Rechtskraft: entwickelt aus dem Rechtsbegriff, Leipzig; Wien: Franz Deuticke.
Michaels D., Monforton C. (2005) Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public’s Health and Environment. American Journal of Public Health, July, pp.39–48. URL: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2004.043059 (accessed: 03.12.2025).
Moore G.E. (1922) Principia Ethica, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nersesyants V.S. (ed.) (2001) Problemy obshchey teorii prava i gosudarstva [Problems of the general theory of law and the State], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2022) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka [European Court of Human Rights], Moscow: Institute for Law and Public Policy. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2023) Novye konstitutsionnye prava v Osnovnom zakone Germanii [New constitutional rights of the German Basic Law]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.32, no.5, pp.51–57. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2025) Ustarevayut li prava cheloveka? [Can human rights become obsolete?] Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.2, pp.4–24. (In Russian).
Olzen D. (2002) Das nichteheliche Kind als Erbe — Ende eines dornenreichen Weges. Rheinische Notar-Zeitschrift, no.9, pp.398–404.
Popper K. (1982) Logik der Forschung: Zur Erkenntnistheorie der modernen Naturwissenschaft, 7th ed., Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).
Porfiriev B.N. et al. (2025) Ekonomicheskie effekty izmeneniya klimata v Rossii [Economic effects of climate change in Russia]. Studies on Russian Economic Development, vol.36, no.2, pp.20–36. (In Russian).
Radbruch G. (1932) Rechtsphilosophie, 3rd ed., Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer.
Rehbinder M. (2007) Rechtssoziologie, 6th ed., München: C.H. Beck.
Searle J.R. (1964) How to derive Ought from Is. Philosophical Review, vol.73, no.1, pp.43–58.
Shcherbanin Yu.A. (2025) Dekarbonizatsiya transporta: mezhdunarodnye somneniya [Decarbonization of Transport: International Doubts]. Scientific works: Institute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, no.1, pp.50–67. (In Russian).
Stammler R. (1902) Die Lehre von dem richtigen Rechte, Berlin: J.Guttentag.
Stammler R. (1914) Wirtschaft und Recht nach der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung, 3rd ed., Leipzig: Von Veit & Comp.
Vengerov A.B. (2000) Teoriya gosudarstva i prava [State and legal theory], 3rd ed., Moscow: Yurisprudentsiya. (In Russian).
Wendel H.J. (2013) Das Abgrenzungsproblem. In: Keuth H. (ed.) Karl Popper: Logik der Forschung, 4th ed., Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp.41–66.
Zippelius R. (2003) Rechtsphilosophie, 4th ed., München: C.H. Beck.