DWORKINS INTERPRETATIVE THEORY

In Dworkins Interpretive Theory, what role will morality play if legal interpretation play if properly carried out? Morality will exercise some significant influence over the way rules are to be understood. According to Dworkin, what does the law consist of? The law consists of the 1) explicitly adopted rules plus 2) the best moral principles that can be understood to lie behind those rules. These principles serve as a legitimate basis of legal decisions, as well as help guide the interpretation of legal rules in hard cases in which the right legal answer is unclear. What are the two degrees of fit between some proposed principle and the rules? Fit as a matter of logical consistency and Fit as a matter of helping one justify or provide a rational for the rules. What does fit as a matter of logical consistency mean? Any viable candidate for an underlying principle must be logically consistent with most of the rules. Total consistency is not required, only a high degree. I. Fitting the Fourth Amendment: Privacy Can the government search your house without a warrant or probable cause? The fourth amendment states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, so, no, the government cannot search it without a warrant or probable cause. II. Olmstead and beyond. Should laws be interpreted while keeping in mind modern technology even though these said technologies did not exist during the time of those who wrote and ratified the laws? Y es, modern technology should be considered while interpreting laws. What happened in the Olmstead case? The Supreme Court decided that because wiretapping was not an act of physical intrusion and confiscation, the fourth

amendment rule did not apply to it.

What was Dworkins approach to a case like Olmstead? He would look at the moral principle that fits the Fourth Amendment rule against unreasonable searches and seizures. Using Dworkins framework, would wiretapping be covered by the fourth amendment? Yes, because according to Dworkin, privacy has two aspects: 1) physical space and 2) informational aspect. The Olmstead case ignores the informational aspect. III. The Role of Morality What happens when in using Dworkins method, there happens to be several competing privacy principles that fit the fourth amendment rule? Then one must decide which of them can be a legitimate basis for legal decision-making. What is the right way of understanding the law in order for us to find the right legal answers to cases in which the explicit rules do not provide a single clear answer? Dworkins solution is to look to morality. The law consists of the rules explicitly adopted by the political community plus the best principles that fit those rules. How does one reconcile the fact that each person may have a different opinion on what is morally best? People will, of course, disagree over what is morally best, but each person decides for him or herself what is morally best. According to Dworkin, a judge who will make a good- faith effort to determine what is morally best is fully authorized to make her legal decisions. IV. The Challenge of Skepticism What is External Skepticism? These are the questions about moral obligations which have no right answer because there is nothing objective in the world that can make a statement about our moral obligations true or false. How does Dworkin counter external

skepticism? Dworkin claims that external skepticism rests on the false premise that moral judgment must correspond to perceivable facts in order for us to reasonably assert that some such judgments are right and others are wrong. However, he fails to come to grip with the fact that there are many different, conflicting ways of conducting moral arguments. What is Internal Skepticism? This theory views our legal system as fundamentally unjust and oppressive. It states that the system promotes the interests of the wealthy and privileged at the expense of the rest of society. It holds that there is no consistent set of moral principles that underlies our laws. V. Assessing Dworkin What is a problem of Dworkins interpretive version of natural law? His theory posits an important and necessary connection between law and morality, but avoids the problems afflicting the approaches of Aquinas and Fuller. What is the difference between Dworkins theory and Aquinas theory? Unlike Aquinas theory, Dworkins theory does not hold that unjust rules are invalid laws. What is the difference between Dworkins theory and fullers theory? Unlike Fullers theory, it does not hold that the principles of legality are by themselves sufficient to create a prima facie moral obligation to obey the rules of any system of positive law. Is Dworkin right in saying that judges can decide based on their own moral judgments? No, because judges should refer to widely accepted judgments in society as well.