Abstract

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1019793
 
 

Footnotes (101)



 


 



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


Michael S 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


Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: October 14, 2007  

Suggested Citation

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

Contact Information

Michael S 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: 1,987
Downloads: 409
Download Rank: 53,600
Footnotes:  101