Ronald Dworkin

This paper will examine both H.L.A Hart and Ronald Dworkin’s position in the theories of law and will try to determine who has won the ‘famous’ debate between the two. Having considered both sides of the argument, I would have to say that Ronald Dworkin’s argument was better than H.L.A Hart’s argument. In applying both Dworkin and Hart’s theories of law, they come to very different conclusions in regards to the case of Riggs v. Palmer. According to Dworkin’s theory of law, judges do not solely

In Reading Three, Ronald Dworkin examines rights to autonomy and the resources those with advanced alzheimer's should or should not have. He explains the decision processes that normal average people have and if those with alzheimer's should have the same rights to making these decisions. Summing up the example he gives about Margo-- Margo when competent could express wishes to have her belongings donated and executed if she were to develop alzheimer's, but then, when she does develop the disease

(2-Dworkin) Ronald Dworkin is a luck egalitarian, and he endorses the distributive view of equality. In his article, What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources, he differentiates the brute luck and option luck, and this distinction is influential in the later development of luck egalitarianism. In this paper, I will examine Dworkin’s distinction between option luck and brute luck, also I will bring up Vallentyne’s argument which is against Dworkin’s distinction. Lastly, I will raise an example

the 20th century, Ronald Dworkin’s dealings with law’s interpretation and integrity has lead to inevitable contradictions with that of positivist ideology, with his work essentially revitalising a method of thinking that had long been considered dead and buried. Perhaps most notoriously, Dworkin combated the positivist theory of his former teacher and predecessor as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University, H.L.A. Hart. When comparing the two, it is apparent that Dworkin and Hart disagree

RYERSON UNIVERSITY Department of Philosophy Course No. PHL 612: Philosophy of Law Winter 2014 SECTION ONE (011) Instructor(s): Alex Wellington Office: Room 428, Jorgenson Hall* Phone: 979-5000 ext. 4057 (E-mail address)**: awelling@ryerson.ca OR alex.wellington@sympatico.ca Office Hours Posted: Wednesdays at 2:10 pm, By Appointment Wednesdays at 3:10 pm and at 4:10 pm, Drop In Time Thursdays at 3:10 pm, By Appointment *Other times may be available by appointment Website:

relevancy to our understanding of the law. The relation of the analysis with the there theses is examined. In the last section the connection between law and morality is used to criticize the Coherence Thesis and Incorporation Thesis, supported by Dworkin and H.L.A. Hart respectively. He ends the essay with observations about the relation between legal theory, law and morality. Raz defends the

Hart's Theory When Hart began forming his legal theory a dominant view in legal theory literature was that law is best understood as the command of a sovereign to its subjects. The 'command' theory most actively propounded by, and identified with Austin, explained law as a matter of commands by a sovereign who is habitually obeyed by others, but who does not habitually obey others. There are regular patterns of obedience to these commands, and legal obligations exist

Hart’s concept of the existence of a legal system is made out of these three differences. Behind the concept is a structure built with great care. Thus far perhaps this Article has injured only the surface of the network and has not yet come to grasps with Hart’s concept of law. Rolf Sartorius would agree, for he contends that Hart’s two minimum conditions for the existence of a legal system “establish nothing more than purely formal criteria for the existence of a legal system. As such, they could

Dworkin begins by roughly defining liberalism according to the New Deal: “It combined an emphasis on less inequality and greater economic stability with more abundant political and civil liberty for the groups campaigning for these goals.” Dworkin states that such a definition is inadequate and goes on to elaborate on liberalism in more depth. The liberal, in economic policies, demands that the inequalities of wealth be reduced through social programs such as “welfare and other redistribution financed

Introduction; This essay is compiled to review and apply Ronald Dworkin (Dworkin) theory and how his theory was incorporated to assist in constructing laws. In light of Dworkin’s theory, significant areas such as moral principles, legal principles, rights and rules will be explore to understand the influence that these attributes had, in essence of creating laws. In order to understand these attributes and their abilities to be incorporated into laws, Dworkin’s theory first must be explored and