The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 7, Page 21-23, July 2012.

This investigation explores how contemporary motherhood is constituted in postindustrial consumer culture through a content and textual analysis of Shape Fit Pregnancy. Using all available issues of the magazine from its inception in 1997 to 2003, the authors first underscore a key tension surrounding pregnant women’s bodies within health and fitness discourse: That the pregnant form is presented as maternally successful yet aesthetically problematic. Second, the authors reveal how contemporary mothers are defined as newly responsible for a second shift of (...) household labor and child care and a new third shift of bodily labor and fitness practices. The analysis examines the way in which the second and third shift are constituted as mutually dependent and reinforcing. Last, the discussion analyzes how this particular fitness text draws on empowerment discourse derived from feminist gains of access to the public sphere while paradoxically inscribing women to the privatized realm of bodily practices, domesticity, and family values. (shrink)

L'empire du droit est le maître ouvrage de Ronald Dworkin, étudié et discuté par les professeurs et les théoriciens, par les juristes et les juges, par les étudiants et les acteurs de la vie politique aux Etats-Unis et ailleurs. Comment les juges établissent-ils le droit (et comment devraient-ils le faire)? Il montre que les juges doivent se prononcer sur les cas difficiles en interprétant, au lieu de se contenter d'appliquer, les jugements rendus antérieurement, et il énonce une théorie générale (...) de l'interprétation, en littérature comme en droit, et des cas où une interprétation doit l'emporter sur les autres. Toute interprétation juridique est le reflet d'une théorie sous-jacente sur la nature d'ensemble du droit : Ronald Dworkin évalue les mérites de trois de ces théories. L'une, le conventionnalisme, considère que le droit qui gouverne une collectivité se borne à la définition qu'en donnent les conventions en usage dans cette collectivité. Selon une autre théorie, le pragmatisme, très estimé aujourd'hui, la meilleure définition de la pratique juridique est celle d'un instrument devant aider une société à atteindre ses objectifs. Dworkin s'élève avec vigueur et avec persuasion contre ces deux points de vue et défend une troisième théorie du droit, celle du droit-intégrité. Il souligne que l'intérêt fondamental du droit n'est pas de faire état d'un consensus, ni de fournir des moyens efficaces pour parvenir aux objectifs que s'est fixés une société donnée, mais de répondre à l'exigence d'une collectivité politique agissant envers chacun de ses membres sur la base cohérente de principes définis. A la lumière de cette conception, il étudie certains cas dans le cadre de la Common Law, d'autres entrés en fonction du droit écrit, et les grands cas de droit constitutionnel soumis à la Cour suprême. Il démontre systématiquement que le concept d'intégrité politique et juridique est la clef de la théorie comme de la pratique juridiques dans le système anglo-américain. (shrink)

Emerging out of increased attention to gender equality within violence and HIV prevention efforts in South African society has been an intensified focus on masculinities. Garnering a deeper understanding of how men respond to shifting gender relations and rights on the ground is of urgent importance, particularly since social constructions of gender are implicated in the HIV/aids epidemic. As social scientists collaborating on a rights-based HIV and antiviolence program, we sought to understand masculinities, rights, and gender norms across six high (...) HIV/aids seroprevalence provinces in South Africa. Drawing on focus group research, we explore the ways that men who are engaged in HIV and antiviolence programming can often be simultaneously resistant to and embracing of changes in masculinities, women’s rights, and gender relations. We use our findings on men’s responses to changing gender relations to make suggestions for how to better engage men in HIV and antiviolence programs. (shrink)

Echoing the debate about the nature of law that has dominated legal philosophy for several decades, this volume includes essays on the nature of law and on law not as it is but as it should be. Wherever possible, essays have been chosen that have provoked direct responses from other legal philosophers, and in two cases these responses are included. Contributors include H.L.A. Hart, R.M. Dworkin, Lord Patrick Devlin, John Rawls, J.J. Thomson, J. Finnis, and T.M. Scanlon.

Of liberty and necessity, by D. Hume.--The doctrine of necessity examined, by C. S. Peirce.--Determinism in history, by E. Nagel.--Some arguments for free will, by T. Reid.--Has the self free will? by C. A. Campbell.--Dialogue on free will, by L. de Valla.--Can the will be caused? by C. Ginet.--Free will, by G. E. Moore.--A modal muddle, by S. N. Thomas.--Determinism, indeterminism, and libertarianism, by C. D. Broad.--An empirical disproof of determinism? by K. Lehrer.--Free will, praise and blame, by J. J. (...) C. Smart.--Bibliographical essay. (shrink)

H.L.A. Hart'sThe Concept of Lawis the most important and influential book in the legal positivist tradition. Though its importance is undisputed, there is a good deal less consensus regarding its core commitments, both methodological and substantive. With the exception of an occasional essay, Hart neither further developed nor revised his position beyond the argument of the book. The burden of shaping the prevailing understanding of his views, therefore, has fallen to others: notably, Joseph Raz among positivists, and Ronald Dworkin (...) among positivism's critics. Dworkin, in particular, has framed, then reframed, the conventional understanding, not only of Hart's positivism, but of the terms of the debate between positivists and him. While standing on the sidelines, Hart witnessed the unfolding of not only a lively debate between positivists and Dworkin, but an equally intense one among positivists as to positivism's (and his) core claims. The most important debate has been between so-called inclusive and exclusive positivists: a debate as much about Hart's legacy as about the proper interpretation of legal positivism. (shrink)

This is a collection of essays on themes of legal philosophy which have all been generated or affected by Hart's work. The topics covered include legal theory, responsibility, and enforcement of morals, with contributions from Ronald Dworkin, Rolf Sartorius, Neil MacCormach, David Lyons, Kent Greenawalt, Michael Moore, Joseph Raz, and C.L. Ten, among others.

We explore the relationship between jurisprudential theories pertaining to the nature of law and semantic and metasemantic theories pertaining to the meaning of ‘law’ in the wake of Dworkin’s notorious Semantic Sting argument in Law’s Empire (HUP 1986). Along the way we delineate various aspects of the semantic and metasemantic underpinnings of ‘law’ as an artifact term and advance the general methodological point that jurisprudential inquiry is only negligibly constrained by the findings of semantic and metasemantic inquiry.

Jules Coleman, one of the world's most influential philosophers of law, here expounds his recent views on a range of important issues in legal theory. Coleman offers for the first time an explicit account of the pragmatist method that has long informed his work, and takes on the views of highly respected contemporaries such as Ronald Dworkin and Joseph Raz.

Un ouvrage qui rassemble les contributions des meilleurs spécialistes de la pensée de Ronald Dworkin sur des questions cruciales pour nos démocraties comme la discrimination positive, la neutralité de l'Etat, la liberté religieuse ou encore l'avortement et l'euthanasie.

No one denies that moral principles figure in legal argument and practice. However, the kind of role morality can or must play in law has been a topic of debate not only between positivists and their critics, but also within the positivist camp. The topic was brought into contemporary prominence by Ronald Dworkin, who in TheModelofRulesI made the provocative observation that the legality of norms appears to depend sometimes on their substantive (moral) merits, and not just on their pedigree (...) or social source. 1 The observation was intended by Dworkin as a challenge to the positivism of H.L.A. Hart. (shrink)

Even though tacit legal norms are deeply important to our past, present, and future, the very idea of unwritten law has been difficult to pin down, and problematic in a range of ways. Existing discussions of the phenomenon fall short of adequacy on one of several fronts: either they have focused on describing the normative features of one kind of unwritten law, or completely conflated the study of unwritten law with natural law, or else offered examinations of unwritten social rules, (...) focussing on (mere) custom, ethics, and/or etiquette. A particular defect is the fact that unwritten law has not been given a treatment by those working in the tradition of analytical jurisprudence. My thesis introduces a novel means of analyzing and explicating the elusive concept of unwritten legal rules, striving thereby to advance the state-of-the-art. In what follows I argue that unwritten laws are informally publicized rules held on the threat of formal sanction by an appropriate political authority. I argue that a law is informally disseminated just in case the appropriate governing theory of law, known to subjects, provides those subjects with a set of instructions about who to defer to concerning the contents of the law, absent dissemination in official venues. I propose that there are at least five potential kinds of unwritten law routinely recognized in legal studies: operations, implicit constitutions, justice norms, fiat rules, and secret laws. Through careful examination of extant theories of law (Aquinas, Hobbes, Foucault, Marx, Austin, Fuller, Hart, and Dworkin), I argue that there are identifiable structural features of the contents of these theories that make them more or less likely to endorse the legal validity of each kind of unwritten law. Throughout the course of the dissertation, I show how we are able to diagnose the ways in which these structural features of our theories of law differentially support the validity of—and shed important, additional light upon—each potential variety of unwritten law. (shrink)

Vinit Haksar has written a fairly lengthy book in order to establish a rather simple point : that it is impossible to arrive at an adequate account of justice without judging the objective merit of alternative ways of life. The main target of his argument is John Rawls, whose influential A Theory of Justice purports to sever considerations of justice from those of the human good in precisely this way. Haksar’s argument is also intended, however, as a criticism of the (...) views of such other contemporary liberal theorists as Ronald Dworkin and Robert Nozick. (shrink)

"Human beings are a part of nature and apart from it." The argument of Natural Law and Justice is that the philosophy of natural law and contemporary theories about the nature of justice are both efforts to make sense of the fundamental paradox of human experience: individual freedom and responsibility in a causally determined universe. Professor Weinreb restores the original understanding of natural law as a philosophy about the place of humankind in nature. He traces the natural law tradition from (...) its origins in Greek speculation through its classic Christian statement by Thomas Aquinas. He goes on to show how the social contract theorists adapted the idea of natural law to provide for political obligation in civil society and how the idea was transformed in Kant's account of human freedom. He brings the historical narrative down to the present with a discussion of the contemporary debate between natural law and legal positivism, including particularly the natural law theories of Finnis, Richards, and Dworkin. Professor Weinreb then adopts the approach of modern political philosophy to develop the idea of justice as a union of the distinct ideas of desert and entitlement. He shows liberty and equality to be the political analogues of desert and entitlement and both pairs to be the normative equivalents of freedom and cause. In this part of the book, Weinreb considers the theories of justice of Rawls and Nozick as well as the communitarian theory of Maclntyre and Sandel. The conclusion brings the debates about natural law and justice together, as parallel efforts to understand the human condition. This original contribution to legal philosophy will be especially appreciated by scholars, teachers, and students in the fields of political philosophy, legal philosophy, and the law generally. (shrink)

The Postscript to The Concept of Law contains Herbert Hart's only sustained and considered response to the objections pressed against his views by his distinguished critic, Ronald Dworkin. In this extraordinary collection, many of the leading legal philosophers in the world evaluate the success of Hart's responses to Dworkin on several of these counts. Notable contributors include Joseph Raz of Oxford University and Jules L. Coleman of the Yale Law School.

The papers in this volume focus on two central issues in the philosophy of law, the relationship between law and morality, and crime and punishment. In the essay that gives the title to this volume, it is argued that, although in many legal systems there are in fact significant connections between law and morality, these connections are not conceptually or logically necessary. They depend on various social practices. Ronald Dworkin's famous attempt to undermine the legal positivist's separation of law (...) from morality is rejected, and it is argued that Dworkin's own positive theory of law may indeed be quite compatible with certain versions of legal positivism. Other essays explore the notion of a wicked legal system, the rule of law, and various perspectives on the nature of law. The essays on crime and punishment discuss the theory and practice of punishment. They extend the work done in the author's earlier book, "Crime, Guilt and Punishment". They reject a purely retributive justification of punishment, in spite of the increasing sophistication in its recent formulations. (shrink)

Ronald Dworkin, beginning in about 1967, has written a series of articles attacking the dominant contemporary theory of law, the legal positivism of H. L. A. Hart. Dworkin’s articles, while largely critical, go far towards establishing his own theory of the law, a theory that while never explicitly and succinctly formulated can nonetheless be reconstructed from his critical remarks. The theory is a combination of positivism and natural law theory, and indeed has been named by one of its (...) critics, “The Third Theory of Law.”. (shrink)

In a recent comment on H.L.A. Hart’s ‘Postscript’ to The Concept of Law, Ronald Dworkin claims that the meaning of legal and political concepts may be understood by analogy to the meaning of natural kind concepts like ‘tiger’, ‘gold’ and ‘water’. This article questions the efficacy of Dworkin’s claims by challenging the use of natural kinds as the basis for a semantic theory of legal and political concepts. Additionally, in matters of value there is no methodological equivalent to (...) the scientific method. Thus, there is little hope of finding hidden essences to explain the meaning of legal and political concepts. Finally, even if there are natural kinds, Dworkin’s arguments for their efficacy in jurisprudence are problematic and unpersuasive. The problem for Dworkin is that his embrace of natural kinds undermines the ‘fit’ side of the fit/justification model of adjudication that lies at the heart of his theory of law. (shrink)

Dans cet article, nous cherchons à situer la position particulière du philosophe Ronald Dworkin à l’égard du droit naturel. Dworkin a formulé une critique du positivisme juridique, qui le rapproche du jusnaturalisme. Toutefois, Dworkin se refuse à fonder les droits sur un supposé ordre moral indépendant que le législateur ou le juge aurait pour tâche de découvrir lorsqu’il produit la loi. Dworkin substitue aux lois naturelles des principes du droit. Ces derniers ne sont pas des vérités (...) morales indépendantes, mais des critères moraux, qu’il est possible de construire rationnellement. Nous montrons ainsi que Dworkin élabore une forme de constructivisme moral, en partie inspiré de John Rawls, mais appliqué au domaine judiciaire au sein duquel les décisions présentes doivent être cohérentes avec les décisions passées, qui lui permet de redéfinir un droit naturel non transcendant. (shrink)

The paper discusses the Anglo-American philosophy of law of the 20th century, more specifically the philosophy of law of Ronald Myles Dworkin and his criticism of the legal positivism of Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart. The author presents the history of the criticism of legal positivism in Ronald Dworkin’s philosophy of law and distinguishes historical stages. The subject of the study is the critique of legal positivism but not the Hart-Dworkin debate itself, well known in Western philosophy of (...) law. The reason is that the discussion was conducted between Dworkin and Hart’s supporters but not between Dworkin and Hart by himself. The latter responded to the criticism only after twenty seven years. The article explains why Dworkin chose for his criticism Herbert Hart’s version of legal positivism. This is due to the fact that Dworkin highly appreciated Hart’s positivist theory of law and characterized it as the “most clear.” The article presents the methodological foundations of criticism of Hart’s legal positivism in Dworkin’s philosophy of law. It reveals a methodological divergence between the two legal theories, which directly affects the understanding of the concept of law and its content. Therefore, we can assume that the legal theories of Hart and Dworkin are two competing models of law: Dworkin’s model considers law as a set of rules and principles and Hart’s model acknowledges only rules and court decisions as a source of law. The article also presents the key principles of positivism criticized by Dworkin. These principles, firstly, interpret law as a set of legal rules determined through a special legal criterion, secondly, provide the judge with an opportunity to make a decision “at his own discretion” in a situation not regulated by law, and, thirdly, recognize only legal rights and obligations enshrined in legal regulations. It is important to note that in this article the author describes criticism as an independent phenomenon of legal philosophy with a particular focus on the history and foundations of this phenomenon. (shrink)

This paper criticises Kevin Toh’s expressivist reconstruction of H. L. A. Hart’s semantics of legal statements on the grounds that two implications of Toh’s reading are arguably too disruptive to Hart’s theory of law. The first of these implications is that legal statements are rendered indistinguishable from statements of value. The second is that the concept of a rule of recognition is rendered dispensable. I argue for the unacceptability of these consequences from a Hartian standpoint in the first two sections (...) of this paper. The last two sections present an alternative view of Hart’s semantics of legal statements, according to which legal normativity is explained in terms of conformity to patterns of validity that by themselves neither provide objective reasons for action nor entail subjective acceptance of such reasons. (shrink)

Ronald Dworkin, né en 1931, est actuellement Professor of Jurisprudence à l’Université d’Oxford et Professor of Law à l’Université de New York. Après des études à Harvard College, à l’Université d’Oxford et à la Harvard Law School, il occupe le poste d’assistant auprès du juge Learned Hand, puis se..

Les rapports entre le droit et la morale dans l’œuvre de Ronald Dworkin sont indiscutablement des rapports d’inclusion. Le système juridique comprend des règles mais également et surtout des « principes » préexistants qui lient l’interprète. Si ces derniers, guidant le juge Hercule dans sa quête de la meilleure solution possible, sont sa principale force, ils en sont également le talon d’Achille. Toute séduisante qu’elle est, la théorie de Ronald Dworkin n’en n’est pas moins incohérente. Insusceptibles de vérité (...) ou de fausseté, ces principes moraux ne sont en réalité que le fruit de la libre création du droit par les juges. (shrink)

The Defence of Natural Law comprises a study of the philosophies of law expounded by Lon L. Fuller, Michael Oakeshott, F.A. Hayek, Ronald Dworkin and John Finnis. The work of these theorists is situated in relation to the modern tradition in legal philosophy. In this way, it is demonstrated that the theorists adhered closely to the natural law standpoint in legal philosophy, while also defending the particular view of the proper functions of law and the state that distinguished the (...) tradition of modern liberalism. (shrink)

Este artículo atiende la manera en que Ronald Dworkin –como H. L. A. Hart y John Rawls, a quienes él sigue– enuncia el fundamento de los derechos humanos. Cierta presencia de iusnaturalismo en ese fundamento es señalado por Dworkin, Hart y Rawls y ellos buscan cuáles serían los derechos naturales del hombre, i.e., ellos son derechos que no pueden depender de un contrato social porque ellos son primeros para estos y son presupuestos; debido a esto, ellos no pueden (...) depender de la sola positivación. Hay, entonces, un iusnaturalismo escondido o latente en el fundamento de los derechos humanos como derechos morales. (shrink)

The existence of unjust laws and unjust legal orders poses a large problem for natural law theories that assert a necessary relationship between law and morality and thus seems to support the positivist tradition, which argues that the relationship is contingent. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of law as a matter of moral principle was plagued by the problem. But here, I argue that the same problem vexes the legal positivism of H.L.A. Hart, for Hart thought that legal philosophy had to (...) explain law as an authoritative system. Dworkin’s theory can, however, respond to the problem, if combined with Lon Fuller’s theory of the internal morality of law and if he follows through on the idea sketched in Justice for Hedgehogs that we work out our moral values in a process of pragmatic inquiry that is shaped by the law. (shrink)

For the past four decades, Anglo-American legal philosophy has been preoccupied – some might say obsessed – with something called the “Hart-Dworkin” debate. Since the appearance in 1967 of “The Model of Rules I,” Ronald Dworkin’s seminal critique of H.L.A. Hart’s theory of legal positivism, countless books and articles have been written either defending Hart against Dworkin’s objections or defending Dworkin against Hart’s defenders. My purpose in this essay is not to declare an ultimate victor; rather (...) it is to identify precisely the core issue around which the debate is organized. Is the Hart-Dworkin debate, for example, about whether the law contains principles, as well as rules? Or does it concern whether judges have discretion in hard cases? Is it about the proper way to interpret legal texts in the American legal system? Or is it about the very possibility of conceptual jurisprudence? Although trying to capture the essence of a philosophical debate can be tricky, I think that there is an important unity to the Hart-Dworkin debate that can be described in a relatively straightforward manner. I suggest that the debate is organized around one of the most profound issues in the philosophy of law, namely, the relation between legality and morality. Dworkin’s basic strategy throughout the course of the debate has been to argue that, in one form or another, legality is ultimately determined not by social facts alone, but by moral facts as well. This contention directly challenges, and threatens to undermine, the positivist picture about the nature of law, in which legality is never determined by morality, but solely by social practice. As one might expect, the response by Hart and his followers has been to argue that this dependence of legality on morality is either merely apparent or does not, in fact, undermine the social foundations of law. The Hart-Dworkin debate, I also try to show, is not a monolithic entity. In the second half of the paper, I describe how Dworkin modified his critique to circumvent the responses of Hart’s followers, thereby inaugurating a new phase in the debate. Virtually no attention, however, has been paid to this latter challenge, which is especially surprising given that none of the previous positivistic defenses are helpful against it. I then sketch out a possible response positivists might offer to this extremely powerful objection. (shrink)

D'où la démocratie tire-t-elle sa valeur? De ce que le plus grand nombre y exerce le pouvoir politique? Ou bien de la protection des droits et des libertés que ses institutions législatives, exécutives et judiciaires y garantissent à chaque personne? Connu en France en tant que philosophe du droit, penseur du libéralisme et des fondements de la justice sociale, Ronald Dworkin a aussi développé une conception originale de la démocratie. Pour lui, la démocratie n'est pas une procédure, mais une (...) communauté, organisée autour des principes de participation, de réciprocité et d'indépendance éthique. Ces principes politiques et moraux sous-tendent la constitution et informent les relations entre ses citoyens. C'est pourquoi l'opposition entre autogouvernement et protection des libertés relève d'une fausse alternative : les juges constitutionnels, en particulier, qui ont la charge d'interpréter le sens et l'étendue des droits, ne s'opposent pas à la réalisation de l'idéal démocratique. Au contraire : pour Dworkin, leur rôle est d'assurer que la communauté se gouverne conformément à ses principes et demeure, ainsi, une démocratie authentique. (shrink)

Ronald Dworkin is one of the most frequently cited legal philosophers. His work, notably his attack on H. L. A. Hart's positivist theory of law, has received considerable attention, earning him praise as well as trenchant criticism. Instead of discussing the analytical validity of Dworkin's claims, though, we propose an alternative reading of his jurisprudential writings that emphasises their rhetorical nature. After delineating the rhetorical context of his work, we provide several illustrations of his use of rhetorical strategies (...) and, with the help of sentiment‐analysis techniques, emotional language. While resorting to classical rhetorical tactics, Dworkin's rhetoric, we argue, appealed to the emotional power of rights talk at a time when the notion of rights enjoyed greater resonance with his audience. (shrink)