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
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.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28
Keywords: Ronald Dworkin, semantics, philosophy of law, jurisprudence, semantic stingAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: October 14, 2007
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.375 seconds