Abstract

The paper examines two conceptions of the legal system - the deductive conception and the interpretive conception - and explores their differences and analogies. In particular, the interpretive and logical treatments they apply to legal standards are analyzed. The paper also argues in favor of conciliating both conceptions, by showing that, when purified of any formalistic element, they are better regarded not as differing reconstructions of the same ideal, but rather as viable reconstructions of diverse ideals concerning different juristic activities: while the former applies to already construed normative systems, whose logical consequences are to be monotonically inferred, the latter mainly bears upon jurists' systematizing activities.