SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

Footnotes (101)

Beta

 


 


Download | Share | Email | Add to Briefcase | Buy Hard Copy

Dworkin v. The Philosophers: A Review Essay on Justice in Robes

Michael Steven Green
William & Mary Law School



University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 5, 2007

Abstract:     
In this review essay, I argue that Dworkin's reputation among his fellow philosophers has needlessly suffered because of his refusal to back down from his "semantic sting" argument against H. L. A. Hart. Philosophers of law have uniformly rejected the semantic sting argument as a fallacy. Nevertheless Dworkin reaffirms the argument in "Justice in Robes," his most recent collection of essays, and devotes much of the book to stubbornly, and unsuccessfully, defending it. This is a pity, because the failure of the semantic sting argument in no way undermines Dworkin's other arguments against Hart.

Keywords: Ronald Dworkin, semantics, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, semantic sting

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: October 14, 2007 ; Last revised: September 16, 2008

Suggested Citation

Green, Michael Steven, Dworkin v. The Philosophers: A Review Essay on Justice in Robes. University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 5, 2007 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1019793


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Michael Steven Green (Contact Author)
William & Mary Law School ( email )
South Henry Street
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795
United States
(757) 221-7746 (Phone)
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 826
Downloads: 192
Download Rank: 44,267
Footnotes: 101

© 2009 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
This page was served by apollo3 in 0.125 seconds.