Ep. 304: Dworkin v. Hart on Legal Judgment (Part One)

episode

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

PEL Presents Philosophy vs. Theater w/ David Epstein 1h 1m · 25 Sep 2026

Ep. 400: Dennett Rejects Qualia (Part Two) 51 min · 21 Sep 2026

PEL Presents Closereads: Late Dennett on Consciousness (Part One) 55 min · 20 Sep 2026

PEL Presents PMP#230: Gettin' Furious 49 min · 18 Sep 2026

Ep. 400: Dennett Rejects Qualia (Part One) 52 min · 14 Sep 2026

PEL Presents PvI#124: Navel Evaluation (Our Season 5 Finale) 53 min · 12 Sep 2026

All episodes from The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded14 Nov 2022

Publisherpartiallyexaminedlife.libsyn.com ↗

Handlerec:5514469

Show notes

On Ronald Dworkin's "The Model of Rules" (1967) and Scott J. Shapiro's "The 'Hart-Dworkin' Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed" (2007). How do judges make decisions in hard cases? When the law "runs out" and doesn't definitively decide an issue, do judges then just draw on their personal moral judgments? Dworkin says no, that moral principles are (contra Hart) built into the legal principles which guide judges, even if these principles are not written out in legal rules. Get more at partiallyexaminedlife.com. Visit partiallyexaminedlife.com/support to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Sign in