Question One:
Recall that we discussed Dworkin’s objection to Hart’s Positivism and how it involved the case, Riggs v. Palmer. How does the objection attack the foundation of positivism and how did it entail the split between hard and soft positivism? (Be sure that you explain key terms and relevant concepts.) Lastly, what is your own position regarding this case and what it may or may not illuminate about positivism (hard or soft)?
Question Two:
What is Murphy’s suggested reconciliation between positivism and natural law theory? Explain. Secondly, do you find this suggestion persuasive? That is, do you think his proposal not only reconciles the two views, but is the most justified way of thinking of the nature of law?
Expectations:
It is expected that all students who submit this question will have read all class reading assignments so far, (since everything builds on everything else). If you choose to include quotations from the reading, that is fine, but provide page numbers in parenthesis. (Please note that having too many quotes is not ideal.) Please stay within the page limit. Write using your own voice but do try to clearly articulate your meaning.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|