Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Natural law requires that unjust positive law lacks legal validity as such; Dworkin never endorses this strong invalidity thesis for wicked law.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Dworkin's principle of 'law as integrity' may implicitly undermine validity of laws deeply inconsistent with justice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates Dworkin's refusal to use 'invalidity' language with acceptance of wicked laws' full legal force.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural law theorists argue Dworkin's position pragmatically concedes their core point: unjust law lacks moral authority.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Dworkin's interpretivism requires law to be evaluated through moral integrity, not categorical invalidity thresholds.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Dworkin distinguishes legal validity from moral legitimacy, allowing wicked laws to retain binding force despite injustice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Strong invalidity thesis entails dangerous indeterminacy about which laws citizens may disobey, which Dworkin rejects.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42