Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1019793
 
 

Footnotes (101)



 


 



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.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28

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

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 14, 2007  

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

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


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,714
Downloads: 349
Download Rank: 47,268
Footnotes:  101

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.578 seconds