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
    Legal interpretation requires choosing among multiple con... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Dworkin's 'law as integrity' shows that determining what the law *is* already embeds evaluative reasoning about what it ought to mean.

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

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Key Terms

    Consistent readings(as used in legal philosophy)
    Different ways of understanding something that don't contradict each other or break any rules.
    Legal community(as used in philosophy of law)
    The group of people involved in law, including judges, lawyers, and lawmakers who share common understandings about how the legal system works.
    Legal interpretation(as used in philosophy of law)
    The process of figuring out what a law actually means and how it should be applied to real situations.
    Value judgment(as used in philosophy and epistemology)
    A statement about what is good, bad, right, or wrong based on personal beliefs or morals, rather than on objective facts.
    principles(Explicitly equated with 'invariant reasons' in the passage)

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Explore a random proposition
    Start fresh with something unrelated.
    Invariant reasons — moral considerations that apply consistently regardless of particular circumstances

    Connections

    1 linked claim

    Dworkin's 'law as integrity' shows that determining what the law *is* already em...

    Related

    Dworkin's 'law as integrity' shows that determining what the law *is* already em...

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective