Dworkin vs. Hart

Attribute	Dworkin	Hart
Legal Positivism vs. Legal Realism	Legal Realism	Legal Positivism
Role of Judges	Judges interpret and apply existing legal principles to resolve cases	Judges apply rules created by the legal system to resolve cases
Concept of Law	Law is a seamless web of principles that provide the best moral justification for existing legal practices	Law consists of primary and secondary rules that govern behavior
Interpretation of Legal Texts	Interpret legal texts in a way that fits with the moral principles underlying the legal system	Interpret legal texts based on their plain meaning and intent of the lawmakers

Background

Ronald Dworkin and H.L.A. Hart are two prominent legal philosophers who have made significant contributions to the field of jurisprudence. Both Dworkin and Hart have written extensively on the nature of law, the role of judges, and the relationship between law and morality. While they share some similarities in their views, they also have distinct differences in their approaches to legal theory.

Legal Positivism vs. Interpretivism

One of the key differences between Dworkin and Hart is their respective positions on legal positivism. Hart is known for his theory of legal positivism, which holds that the validity of law is determined by social facts such as legislation and judicial decisions. According to Hart, there is a clear distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be. On the other hand, Dworkin rejects legal positivism in favor of interpretivism, which argues that judges should interpret the law in a way that is consistent with moral principles and values.

Judicial Discretion

Another area of divergence between Dworkin and Hart is their views on judicial discretion. Hart believes that judges have a certain degree of discretion in applying the law, as long as they adhere to the rules and principles established by the legal system. In contrast, Dworkin argues that judges should strive to find the "right answer" in each case by interpreting legal principles in a way that is consistent with moral values. Dworkin's approach to judicial decision-making is more principled and less reliant on judicial discretion than Hart's.

Role of Principles

Both Dworkin and Hart recognize the importance of principles in legal reasoning, but they differ in their understanding of the role of principles in the law. Hart believes that principles are secondary to rules and play a more limited role in legal decision-making. According to Hart, principles are general standards that guide the application of rules, but they do not have the same binding force as rules. In contrast, Dworkin argues that principles are just as important as rules in legal reasoning and should be given equal weight in judicial decision-making.

Concept of Law

One of the most fundamental differences between Dworkin and Hart is their concept of law. Hart defines law as a system of rules that are enforced by social institutions such as courts and police. According to Hart, the validity of law is determined by the rule of recognition, which establishes the criteria for identifying valid legal rules. In contrast, Dworkin views law as an interpretive enterprise that involves reasoning from principles to reach a coherent and morally justifiable outcome. Dworkin's concept of law is more holistic and normative than Hart's.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while Dworkin and Hart both make important contributions to legal theory, they have distinct differences in their approaches to jurisprudence. Hart's legal positivism emphasizes the importance of social facts and the rule of recognition in determining the validity of law, while Dworkin's interpretivism prioritizes moral principles and values in legal reasoning. Despite their differences, both Dworkin and Hart have shaped the way we think about law and the role of judges in interpreting and applying it.