PHIL 307: Philosophy of Law, Fall 2021 Reading Question One Directions: Answer o
PHIL 307: Philosophy of Law, Fall 2021
Reading Question One
Answer one of the following two questions as thoroughly as possible. Reponses should be between 1 and 2 pages, 12 point font, and double spaced. There will be a place to upload your essay on Canvas. There is no extra credit for answering both questions.
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)?
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?
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 (2 pages, double spaced). Write using your own voice but do try to clearly articulate your meaning.
This response is due on Wednesday, Sept 22th at 11:59 pm. Students who need extra time may turn in the question by Friday, Sept. 14th at 11:59. If you are unable to turn the response in by the 24th, please visit me in office hours so we can discuss how best to proceed.