Hart-dworkin debate pdf

Honors Thesis. Philosophy Political Science, General Law. Judd Owen, Emory University. Press to Select an action Download. Click here to sign up. Download Free PDF. Dannial Budhwani. A short summary of this paper.

Download Download PDF. Translate PDF. The primary two views present in the debate are H. These two philosophers are the ones who initiated the debate, but they are not the only two to partake in it.

Scott Shapiro claims that while many people have taken the debate to be about whether the law is a model of rules, he rejects that claim. Shapiro believes that the debate is organized around the relation between legality and morality. Dworkin argues that there are two different types of legal disagreement: empirical and theoretical. Empirical disagreements are about whether the grounds of law are valid.

A possible empirical disagreement about the law would be whether or not the speed limit on the interstate is 75 miles per hour. The disagreement can be solved by looking at the books, and seeing that a majority of legislators voted on the bill, and it was officially signed into law.

Empirical disagreements can be solved by empirically seeing what the law actually is. Dworkin is not really concerned with empirical disagreements; he finds theoretical disagreements to be much more interesting. Budhwani 2 Theoretical disagreements are not about whether the grounds of law have been obtained.

Instead, they are disagreements about what the grounds of law actually are. In a theoretical disagreement, both parties have the grounds of law in front of them and disagree on the meaning of the grounds.

If we bring back our speed limit example, the disagreement could be on whether or not the legislature had the authority to enact the speed limit of 75 on the interstate. Dworkin gives us a few real world examples of theoretical disagreements in court cases. Elmer suspected that his grandfather was going to change the will to take him out of it.

Elmer was caught and put into jail. The dissenting opinion was written by Judge Gray. He argued for an acontextual reading of the law that does not favor any kind of context or intention behind the law. He saw that all the necessary conditions of the will were fulfilled and that taking away the estate from Elmer would be excessive since he already had been punished for his crime. Looking at it from that perspective, Gray concluded that Elmer should get the inheritance. A Mutter of Principle.

Law's Empire. Gallie, W. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Gray, John. On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts. Politicnl Theory 5 : Hacker, P. Raz eds. Hart, H. The Concept of Law. Problems of the Philosophy of Law. In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol. Paul Edwards, New York: Macmillan. New York University Law Review Georgia Law Review Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy.

Kalman, Laura. Legal Realism at Yale Leith, Philip and Peter Ingram eds. London: Routledge. Livingstone, Stephen. Of the Core and Penumbra: H. Hart and American Realism. Philip Leith and Peter Ingram, Lord Reid. The Judge as Law Maker. Journal of the Society of Public Teachers of Law MacCormick, Neil. Hart, London: Edward Arnold. Martin, Michael. The Legal Philosophy of H. A Critical Appraisal. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. A Note on Dworkin and Precedent. Modern l a w Review Perry, Thomas.

Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper. Background Citations. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Legal Positivism and Legal Disagreements. This paper deals with the possibility of faultless disagreement in law. It does this by looking to other spheres in which faultless disagreement appears to be possible, mainly in matters of taste and … Expand. Highly Influenced.