Self-study
P1
Ronald Dworkin argues that judges are in danger of uncritically embracing an erroneous theory known as legal positivism because they think the only alternative is a theory that they (and Dworkin) see as clearly unacceptable—natural law. ███
Dworkin's perspective ·
Judges shouldn't embrace legal positivism
Dworkin thinks they might embrace legal positivism because they think it's the only alternative to natural law.
Natural law ·
Says judges should interpret law by consulting own morals
Dworkin rejects this.
P2
█████ ███████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███████ ██ █ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ █████ ███████████ ██████ ████████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ █ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ███████ ████████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████
Legal positivism ·
Meaning of law is based on social conventions
Just like how meanings of words are based on social conventions. According to legal positivism, disputes about meaning of law should be resolved by figuring out what's actually the consensus about the meaning.
P3
█████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ██ ██ █████ ██ █ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ████ ███████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███
Dworkin's perspective ·
Actual behavior by judges and lawyers isn't consistent with positivism
We need a theory that is based on what judges and lawyers actually do.
Dworkin's theory ·
Internal logic of law
Meaning of law should conform to the internal logic of law and the principles that law is based on, regardless of conventions. Principles might involve appeal to morals, but this isn't like natural law, because internal logic still matters.
P4
███ ████████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████████ ███████████████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████████
Elaborate on Dworkin's theory ·
Positivist are wrong in focusing only on what people think law means
The internal logic of law constrains how we might interpret law.
Passage Style
Critique or debate
22.
What is the main purpose ██ ███ ██████ ██████████
a
to explain why █████ ██████████ ██ ██ ███████
The first sentence of P2 tells us that legal positivism is more popular than natural law theory. But the paragraph never explains why legal positivism is more popular.
b
to evaluate the ██████ ██ █████ ██████████
P2 simply presents a neutral description of legal positivism; it doesn’t evaluate the theory. P3 gives us Dworkin’s perspective of legal positivism.
c
to discuss how ████████ █████████ ██ ██████████
Legal positivism says that disagreements about the law should be settled by figuring out the consensus about what the law means. But P2 doesn’t discuss how a consensus is determined.
d
to identify the █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████
The purpose of P2 is simply to identify the basic beliefs of legal positivism: the law’s meaning comes from social conventions, and disagreements should be settled by figuring out the consensus about what the law means.
e
to argue in █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████ ██████████
P2 doesn’t argue for or against legal positivism; it simply presents a neutral description of the theory. P3 gives us Dworkin’s perspective of legal positivism. He thinks it isn’t consistent with the actual practice of judges and lawyers.