Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that This distinction means Dworkin's 'law as integrity' is a sophisticated positivism about particular legal systems, not natural law theory.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Integrity requires judges to interpret law through best moral principles, making it fundamentally normative-ethical theory.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Dworkin explicitly denies positivism's fact/value separation; he insists law requires moral judgment, distinguishing him from positivists.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Integrity's community-based moral reading resembles natural law's appeal to higher principles, not positivism's descriptive neutrality.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Dworkin grounds law in actual legal system practices and conventions, not transcendent moral truths, which defines positivism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Integrity as 'fit with existing law' prioritizes coherence within a specific system over universal moral principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Dworkin rejects natural law's claim that unjust laws aren't truly law, instead evaluating legitimacy within each system.
?
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.