View Single Post
  #9  
Old 11-21-2008, 12:04 PM
Francoamerican
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Even Further Beyond the Hart-Dworkin Debate

Quote:
Originally Posted by basman View Post
And having said this, I can see better than I did before the argument for the small number of cases of actual theoretical disagreement--the top of the pyramid, so to speak--as telling for the positivist account and as telling against the Dworkinan account. Itzik Basman
My comment was less directed at you than at legal positivism. Unlike you I lean towards the Dworkinian account of the relationship between law and morality (or justice). Dworkin is a better philosopher and a better historian.

Legal positivism is a stale and empty school of thought, suitable only for a certain type of liberal academic who cannot make up his mind about anything. If you agree with Max Weber and Hans Kelsen that the social sciences must be "wertfrei," and with the Viennese logical positivists that natural law is nothing but metaphysics, then I suppose you will agree with Hart and tutti quanti. But if you think as I do that no one can really be "wertfrei" and that modern natural law (Grotius--Hobbes---Locke---Rousseau--Kant) still has something to teach us, then you will side with a more robust conception of the law.
Reply With Quote