Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Dworkin's 'law as integrity' shows that determining what the law *is* already embeds evaluative reasoning about what it ought to mean.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between 'discovering' law's meaning and 'creating' it through evaluation suggests some propositions are simply true or false regardless of judges' evaluative commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Even if interpretation involves judgment, this doesn't prove evaluative reasoning is constitutive of 'what law is' rather than merely necessary for resolving ambiguity about pre-existing law.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Dworkin conflates the epistemic challenge of knowing law with the metaphysical question of what law fundamentally is; these require separate answers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Legal interpretation requires choosing among multiple consistent readings; choice itself presupposes value judgment about which interpretation best fits the legal community's principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dworkin's 'fit' requirement (coherence with past law) cannot be applied without evaluative judgment about which principles most justly explain existing legal materials.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If law had determinate meaning independent of evaluation, hard cases wouldn't exist; their prevalence shows interpretation necessarily involves normative reasoning about legal legitimacy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.