Semantic Sting Research Articles

Human Rights, Interpretivism, and the Semantic Sting

Abstract What are human rights? What makes a particular human rights claim ‘genuine’ or ‘valid’? These are difficult questions with which current philosophical literature on human rights is concerned. They are also the same kind of questions that legal philosophers asked about Law throughout the 20th century. Drawing from the similarities between the two fields, I attempt to do with the concept of human rights something similar to what Ronald Dworkin accomplished with that of Law in Law’s Empire. First, I offer a critique of the two dominant perspectives on human rights—the Orthodox and Political views—that is similar in character to Dworkin’s Semantic Sting objection to Legal Positivism. Second, I sketch an alternative, Dworkinian-inspired framework that seeks to develop the notion of human rights as an interpretive concept. According to this framework, different accounts of human rights are to be understood as expressing different interpretations of the point (or purpose) of human rights practice.

Problemas da teoria das fontes do direito à luz da ideia de direito como integridade de Ronald Dworkin

O presente texto pretende evidenciar os problemas da tradicional teoria das fontes do Direito em face da noção de que Direito é um empreendimento coletivo e uma prática social interpretativa, como apresenta Ronald Dworkin em sua teoria do Direito como Integridade. Assim, pretendemos mostrar que a teoria das fontes do Direito parte do pressuposto positivista no sentido de que o Direito seria uma mera questão de fato, a partir da existência de uma regra de reconhecimento, padecendo, nesse ponto, daquilo que Dworkin denomina de aguilhão semântico. Retirando-se o aguilhão semântico, passa-se a perceber o Direito como um conceito interpretativo, incompatível com uma teoria das fontes que pretenda relevar, de antemão e de forma unívoca, o que seja o direito válido.

Semanticism vs. Interpretivism in Legal Regime

Semanitcism and interpretivism are important philosophical contention in jurisprudence. Semanticism expects plain application of law with the view of word, phrase, grammar and the intention of authors. Interpretivism is quite flexible to apply the legal provision based on contextual relevancy which interprets law more than the literal meaning. Dworkin is against legal positivism especially the philosophy of Hart on the ground that those legal positivists are suffered of semantic sting and has established interpretive positivism in law. In particular sense, semanticism vs. interpretivism in law is Hart vs. Dworkin issues and in general sense, all jurisprudential philosophy is either linked to semanticism or interpretivism. Metaphysical realism of Michel Moore, rule following theory of Wittgenstein, Kirpke’s theory of proper name, Putnam’s theory of natural kinds, radical interpretation of Donald Davidson are important area of this debate. Philosophically, they required to be separated but practically both issues should be evaluated in law equally so that the ultimate aim of justice can be realized and public concept of justice may be established.

Dworkin's Theoretical Disagreement Argument

AbstractDworkin's theoretical disagreement argument, developed in Law's Empire, is presented in that work as the motivator for his interpretive account of law. Like Dworkin's earlier arguments critical of legal positivism, the argument from theoretical disagreement has generated a lively exchange with legal positivists. It has motivated three of them to develop innovative positivist positions.In its original guise, the argument from theoretical disagreement is presented as ‘the semantic sting argument’. However, the argument from theoretical disagreement has more than one version. This article briefly discusses two versions and the leading replies to them, then focuses on the most influential (recast) version, directed at Hartian positivism. The article surveys the leading positivist rejoinders to the recast version, indicating key Dworkinian replies or assessing the strength of these rejoinders, and concludes with a rejoinder of its own, making a new case that the argument from theoretical disagreement isn't fatal for Hartian legal positivism.

Theoretical Disagreement and the Semantic Sting

Theoretical Disagreement and the Semantic Sting

Has Raz Drawn the Semantic Sting?

This article examines Joseph Raz's response to Ronald Dworkin's ‘semantic sting’ argument against legal positivism. In his response, Raz defends a ‘criterial’ approach to conceptual explanation. I argue that this approach can account for some theoretical disagreements about law, but cannot account for the theoretical disagreements Dworkin discusses in Law's Empire. For this reason, Raz's response is unsuccessful. I then contend that Raz's discussion of another aspect of Dworkin's work suggests an alternative objection to the semantic sting argument, and consider how Dworkin might respond to this alternative objection.

Dworkin's Theory of Law

AbstractRonald Dworkin is one of the most important, and one of the most controversial, contemporary legal philosophers. This article elucidates the main aspects of Dworkin's theory of law, discussing both his key criticisms of legal positivism and his own positive views about law. The article also briefly examines some of the major controversies surrounding Dworkin's theory of law, such as the debates arising out of his right answer thesis and semantic sting argument.

The Methodological Problem in Legal Theory: Normative and Descriptive Jurisprudence Revisited

Legal philosophers share the same phenomenology of legal practice. Yet, they differ in its explanation. For normativists, descriptivists got it wrong and vice versa. This controversy between normativists and descriptivists will be called “the methodological problem” in legal theory. Normativists such as Dworkin and Perry argue that descriptivists need evaluation. By contrast, descriptivists such as Coleman argue that normativists need the methods of descriptivism such as conceptual analysis and therefore might be committed to descriptivism. The paper shows that the responses of Perry and Coleman to the methodological problem are not free from difficulties. The article also advances a reinterpretation of normativism in terms of two tenets: 1. the semantic sting argument, and 2. the ametaphysical thesis argument. If the latter argument is sound, normativism is unavoidable, because if there cannot be an external point of view or Archimedean perspective, then we can only resort to our moral convictions or substantive claims. The first tenet has been criticized in previous work and the paper focuses on a criticism of the second tenet.

The Methodology of Jurisprudence: Thirty Years Off the Point

This essay considers the growing interest in the methodology of jurisprudence in the context of a broader examination of the relationship between legal theory and the practice of law. Attention is drawn to the particular puzzles of how theory can both be independent of and yet inform practice, and how methodology can take a similar stance towards theory. Through a detailed analysis of the methodological positions adopted by Dworkin, Raz, and Coleman and Simchen, the conclusion is reached that methodology is not a resource capable of offering an independent assessment of the merits of competing theories.Mainstream jurisprudential discussion is traced through the Hart-Dworkin debate to assumptions on the relationship between theory and practice initially adopted by Hart and sustained by subsequent contributors. The morbid condition of a prominent part of contemporary jurisprudence is identified with an unwarranted elevation of theory over practice. A more fruitful role for theory is suggested, in expounding the controversies met in the practice of law and considering the potential that exists for resolving them. It is suggested that this approach breaks down an artificial divide between descriptive and normative jurisprudence.A number of ancillary matters are discussed in the essay including: semantic (and metasemantic) approaches to legal theory, Dworkin’s semantic sting, the distinction between methodological and theoretical elements of Law's Empire, Dickson on the ‘indirectly evaluative approach’, the position of Hart in his Postscript, and Raz's split theory of legal reasoning and law.

The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How To Interpret the ECHR

This paper addresses the role of the European Court of Human Rights in interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights and attacks the standard image in the literature that pictures judges as having, by default, a great amount of discretion in interpretation and a power to create new law. The Court's notion of 'autonomous concepts' is presented and analysed thoroughly, to show that substantive disagreement is widespread in law and that judges must necessarily make choices precisely out of respect for what the ECHR grants. The paper draws resources from Ronald Dworkin's philosophy and shows the affinities between the theory of 'autonomous concepts' and Dworkin's 'semantic sting' argument. It is argued that all concepts in the ECHR are autonomous, in the following two senses: first, people do not share the same linguistic criteria on how to identify their meaning; second, the correct meaning may radically transcend the way the ECHR concepts are classified and understood within the national legal order. Judges therefore have to construct substantive theories that aim at capturing the nature or purpose of the right involved and of the ECHR more generally. The paper concludes by urging scholars and judges to stop raising the threat of judicial discretion and work out general theories of adjudication for the ECHR.

A DEFENCE OF HART'S SEMANTICS AS NONAMBITIOUS CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Two methodological claims in Hart's The Concept of Law have produced perplexity: that it is a book on “analytic jurisprudence”H.L.A Hart, THE CONCEPT OF LAW (1994). and that it may also be regarded as an essay in “descriptive sociology.”Id. Are these two ideas reconcilable? We know that mere analysis of our legal concepts cannot tell us much about their properties, that is, about the empirical aspect of law. We have learned this from philosophical criticisms of conceptual analysis; yet Hart informs us that analytic jurisprudence can be reconciled with descriptive sociology. The answer to this puzzle lies in the notion of nonambitious conceptual analysis. The theorist analyzes concepts but accepts the limitations of conceptual analysis and therefore uses empirical knowledge and substantive arguments to explain, refine, or perhaps refute initial insights provided by intuitions. This is the conclusion that this paper arrives at as an argumentative strategy to defend Hart's legal theory from the criticisms of Stavropoulos and Dworkin. The latter argues that Hart's legal theory cannot explain theoretical disagreements in law because he relies on a shared criterial semantics. Stavropoulos aims to show that Hart's semantics is committed to ambitious conceptual analysis and relies on the usage of our words as a standard of correctness. Both attacks aim to show that the semantic sting stings Hart's legal theory. This essay refines both challenges and concludes that not even in the light of the most charitable interpretation of these criticisms is Hart's legal theory stung by the semantic sting. This study defends the view that Hart's methodological claims were modest and that he was aware of the limits of conceptual analysis as a philosophical method. He was, this study claims, far ahead of his time.

Herbert Hart and the Semantic Sting

Even to disagree, we need to understand each other. If I reject what you say without understanding you, we will only have the illusion of a disagreement. You will be asserting one thing and I will be denying another. Even to disagree, we need some agreement.