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
    Therefore, meaning alone cannot fully determine rules — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The content-retrieval view of legal interpretation is inadequate because it cannot account for reasonable disagreement over rule application

    Therefore, meaning alone cannot fully determine rules

    Philosophy of Language
    ?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.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Connections

    1 topic

    Democracy & Governance1 linked

    Related

    If the meaning of words determines the rules, and all parties agree on the meani...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The Lord Chief Justice and magistrates can agree on the meaning of legislative w...
    The content-retrieval view of legal interpretation is inadequate because it cann...

    Similar

    Therefore, meaning alone is insufficient to determine what is stated.83%One could learn the rules R' without fully understanding 'W'77%Learning the rules R is sufficient to fully grasp '∃'76%Expressions have meaning because there are rules or norms in force for...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: law-language
    View source passageHide passage
    Dworkin’s challenge is pressing because of the absurdity of the content-retrieval view. To meet the challenge, it is necessary to explain how it can be reasonable to disagree over the application of rules made by communicative acts. If the meaning of words determines the rules, and the Lord Chief Justice and the magistrates agreed in their grasp of the meaning of the words of the legislation, how could they differ on the question of what the rules required?

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

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

    Share the first perspective