Author: Coyle, Sean

Source: Journal of Moral Philosophy, Volume 6, Number 4, 2009 , pp. 521-534(14)

Publisher: BRILL

Abstract:

Both of the books under review (R. Dworkin, Justice in Robes and N.E. Simmonds, Law as a Moral Idea) offer a challenge to the dominant jurisprudential tradition of legal positivism. Underlying this superficial similarity in aims is a sharp divergence in philosophical outlook. Whereas Dworkin's arguments operate within a body of background assumptions that he shares with his opponents, and which he has done much to shape, Simmonds sees his task as challenging those assumptions. This is particularly evident in the moral philosophies at the heart of each book: Dworkin (I argue) can be seen as offering a Protestant-voluntarist-atheist philosophy; whereas Simmonds resembles a Catholic-conservative-Aristotelian.

Keywords: ARISTOTLE; CONSERVATISM; DWORKIN; MORALITY; PLURALISM; PROTESTANTISM; SIMMONDS

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/174046809X12464327133258

Publication date: 2009-12-01

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Philosophy
• By this author: Coyle, Sean

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers