Each and every type of "ought", be it religious, moral or legal, must presuppose a certain point of view, a point of view which is constituted by the basic norm of the relevant normative system.
Anarchism is understood here precisely as a rejection of the normative validity of law; however, even the anarchist can make an argument about what the law in this or that context requires; and when she makes such an argument, she must presuppose the legal point of view, she must argue as if she endorses the basic norm of the relevant legal system.
This is primarily due to the tendency of certain media to, in the search for a greater profit, violate the basic norms of the profession and ethical standards, and thus the basic principle of the respecting the right to privacy.
The content of the basic norm of any given legal system is determined by the actual practices that prevail in the relevant community.
Similarly, the normativity of law, presupposed by its basic norm, is optional: "An anarchist, for instance, who denied the validity of the hypothetical basic norm of positive law….
But this led Kelsen to the rather uncomfortable conclusion that there is only one basic norm in the entire world, namely, the basic norm of public international law.
God's commands, however, would only have normative validity for those who presuppose the basic norm of their respective religion, namely, that one ought to obey God's commands.
In such a case, the priest must argue as if he endorses the basic norm of Jewish Law, but of course, being a Catholic, he does not really endorse it, it does not reflect his own views about what is right and wrong (Raz 1979, 153 157).
In both editions of the Pure Theory of Law, Kelsen toys with the idea that perhaps changes in the basic norms of municipal legal systems legally derive from the basic norm of public international law.
That is, until Trump blithely shredded this most basic norm of transparency — meaning that his own unprecedented contempt for this norm is what necessitates the House taking this aggressive step in response.
But Mr. Abeynayake is unapologetic about violating what many see as a basic norm of journalism: giving both sides of a story.
