Ronald Dworkin's attack on HLA Hart's Theory of Law

I am writing a book! If you want to know when it is ready (and maybe win a free copy), submit your email on my website: www.jeffreykaplan.org/
I won’t spam you or share your email address with anyone.
This is a video lecture about the criticism or objection (mostly from "Model of Rules I," which appears in Dworkin's book "Taking Rights Seriously") that Ronald Dworkin makes of HLA Hart's version of legal positivism. The video explains Hart's theory of adjudication, his concept of the open texture of law, and Dworkin's distinction between rules and principles, and how that distinction is used in his objection to Hart. This is part of a Philosophy of Law Course.

[@unaradzunlocked2579]

Out of everyone in the world, I sincerely hope you have a great day. I'm a law student in South Africa and your videos help me understand Jurisprudence so much more. You are a blessing to law students everywhere.

[@kumbeetjirimuje4193]

Co. All the best with Fgn's test today.

[@catherineklaasen6845]

goodluck for the test today UCT people 😂😭💕

[@sibahlezuma4904]

You guys are literally gathered here😂🥴

[@auntypae3273]

This one saved lives Unathi

[@belenferreirabusso3568]

same, im here from argentina and this HELPS

[@mahwishkhan8699]

I and my sister were on the verge of breakdown with the initial chapters of Module guide of University of London on Jurisprudence until came across your lectures. Thanks a million Jeffrey and please continue to post more. Greetings from Pakistan

[@Maharani99]

society would be so different if everyone taught law like this. thank you so much!! this is so accessible and valuable.

[@hannahcooke3590]

I can't describe how much your concept of law videos have helped me! I have an exam tomorrow and all of our jurisprudence lectures have been online this semester (due to covid). We were left with no notes from our lecturer, and I had no understanding of these theorists until I watched your videos! Thanks again, you have a real talent for teaching and explaining concepts! :)

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad I could help! Good luck with the exam tomorrow!

[@hannahcooke3590]

@@jeffreykaplan1 Thank you so much!

[@girlparodys]

These videos have saved my life in understanding one of my classes for my degree thank you so much!

[@missmayette]

I foolishly decided to take a Philosophy of Law class by distance ed (meaning no live lectures, online or otherwise). Our instructor included this video in our reading material this week and I wish I had found your channel at the start of the semester. Thanks for uploading these - it's going to make reading and understanding the chapters easier for me!

[@jorgebello7726]

Excelente exposición Mr. Kaplan, muchísimas gracias.

[@johnharmonder4306]

You are simply outstanding mate. Your teaching ability is as good as it gets. All the best.

[@ankisand-gi4kc]

Super thanks from The Netherlands! I'm reading a text book on these topics for an introductory course. Your lectures are very helpful to make me better understand and see relationships between the diversity of theories and opinions.

[@Allshadows]

You are single handedly saving me in my current courses.

[@nyx_bts4992]

I love the way you explain things. So simple and clear. Thank you soooo much

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Thanks for the kind words. You're welcome!

[@isaac5447]

Wow this video deserves more likes …thank you so much Jeffrey for making me pass my philosophy of law exams 👍🙏🏼

[@sharminishadagopan3106]

Thank you so much for all Concept of Law videos, made so much sense and ive grasped the concept, just because of you. Thanks again.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

You're very welcome!

[@mdbest0000]

Great Video. I had a question- Can Hartian judges not rely on principles directly while adjudicating the cases, even if they aren’t part of the legal system per se?

[@jetblackhair92]

Ommfg thank you for your explanation of these theory. I admire both Hart and Dworkin. I want to recommend you to all students who are studying jurisprudence.

[@Alealex26]

Ingenious way of teaching. But I have the following question. Did you have to write a thesis on the Hart Dworkin debate. How would you go about it? What do you think is essential that should be included in the thesis? Do you have preferences?

[@karenorozco1990]

Excellent explanation! Clear, concise and easy to understand.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Thank you for the kind words! Glad you liked it.

[@BogieBoy2000]

Hey, thank you for the help! I was struggling with my essay and this has helped so much!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad this was helpful!

[@Pragyasriv7]

oh this is the best explanation of dworkin's criticism i've come across.

[@doog7138]

Thank you Mister Kaplan for this very good explanation! It really helped me and a friend to understand this topic.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad to hear that!

[@caraallen4838]

Brilliantly explained! Top class teaching.

[@AntoH98]

Thank you for this video, I had to do a paper on the Hart-Dworkin debate and I wasn't getting anywhere (I'm not a philosophy fan) until I saw this. So thank you very much.

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad to help!

[@shhgsg]

You are Great Sir... Plz upload informative videos on jurisprudence

[@evelinalungu6850]

I have a question, in what chapter/page does Dworkin talk about strong discretion?

[@Aaaamed]

Are there any book/articles of McCormick that you would suggest? And thanks for the great lecture!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

I am a fan of his 1994 book "Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory"

[@Aaaamed]

@@jeffreykaplan1 Will look into it, thank you very much!

[@anderseidesvik8624]

Thank you so much for the clarifying video, and for making legal theory understandable!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

My pleasure!

[@aviwearnold2630]

Wish our lecturers where this good.

[@danielaavila7935]

Hello, thank you for the video🙏🏻 I’m just wondering what would be considered real life examples of hard cases ? I’m just having trouble deciding if the case I’m looking at is a hard case

[@jeffreykaplan1]

The most famous real-life example is probably Riggs v Palmer, which I have this video about: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4m0aKCBittrl5o

[@bojackthehorse1323]

You sir are a God send. Thank you so much!

[@kaviarasanveerayah9157]

You saved me one day before my exams: thanks Jeffrey 😍

[@nosiphonkosi9609]

Just gonna express my gratitude to you. I am so glad i found your page. Jurisprudence is crazy #wits-SA

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad I could help!

[@starrynight5615]

What book would you recommend for understanding criminal jurisprudence

[@trishantrajpurohit7541]

How are you writing all this?? I mean which board are u using..if u please tell me

[@yaeliosilevich9267]

Dear number one life saver, Can you please do a video about Scott J. Shapiro, The hart-Dworkin Debate - A short Guide for the perplexed?

[@tanishrawat1068]

Thanks a lot for making such videos! Really helpful

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad you like them!

[@samverebes4564]

amazing stuff, so helpful and easy to take in!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad it was helpful!

[@serwaakobua7826]

I am from Ghana. Thank you

[@danilo11able]

I'm curious of how did You get the text of phrases in the correct way in they glass, i don't think You wrote it backwards, didnt You?

[@waggishsagacity7947]

Somewhat cynically it seems at first blush, the jurist Roscoe Pound declared that "The law is what any judge in the land deems it to be at any given time." Thus, appeals could reverse trial courts' decisions, and the highest court can reverse or modify a lower court's ruling. And then there are case that are never appealed for whatever reason, including lack of funds. So there you have it in a nutshell.

[@nicolasnadeau4299]

Thank you (merci) from Montreal

[@heavenlythoughtspodcast]

So good!! Thank you so much!

[@bradfordgoerss3242]

Loved the explanation....very clear and easy to digest. I just have to ask....I know it has to have been asked already....what about this amazing ability to write backwards? Am I missing something?! This is like Destin (smartereveryday) learning to ride is backwards bicycle. I had to watch the video twice because the first time I was too distracted at trying to figure out if there's a mirror involved somehow or if Dr. Kaplan is really writing backwards!! Will watch more for sure!!

[@jeffreykaplan1]

You are not the first to ask about this! Here is the explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJDHZWeYocaSfaM

[@bradfordgoerss3242]

@@jeffreykaplan1 Just watched it...oh man..that's cool. Thanks professor. I look forward to more videos. Cheers from Valencia, Spain.

[@benarkus8003]

Top stuff Good sir!

[@ProDemocracy01]

Good work

[@user-up9ow9mg9t]

A beautiful explanation !

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Thanks!

[@evelinalungu6850]

where does Neil McCormick talk about the RoR?

[@joanabiney5123]

Thank you very much🙏

[@klauscheung8235]

very helpful!

[@andreasmaaan]

How does Dworkin distinguish principles from (for example) values, attitudes, and biases?

[@Valeoroxco]

I have an exam tomorrow and this is so helpfull omg

[@yulifts1873]

great video! finally got a 1.1

[@evelinalungu6850]

Thank you!

[@user-ss8sl1me9i]

Thanks thanks thanks Many many thanks

[@swinger2]

Ok, I’ll be the one to ask. How is he writing facing himself but it’s also facing the viewer?

[@maxheadrom3088]

The other day I learned from Dworking why Law in the US is so much fun! (fun for those who like philosophy). (from an interview by Bill Moyers recorded in 1987)

[@variztia]

As Hayek, who was in general quite favorable to Hart's position, put it in a footnote (1976): «If by 'system of rules' is understood a collection of articulated rules, this would certainly not constitute the whole law. Ronald M. Dworkin, who in an essay entitled 'Is Law a System of Rules?' (in R. S. Summers, ed., Essays in Legal Philosophy, Oxford and California, 1968) uses the term 'system' as equivalent to 'collection' (p. 52) and seems to accept only articulated rules as rules, shows convincingly that a system of rules so interpreted would be incomplete and requires for its completion what he calls 'principles'. (...) I prefer to use the term system for a body of rules that are mutually adjusted to each other and possess an order of rank, and of course I include in 'rules' not only articulated but also not yet articulated rules which are implicit in the system or have yet to be found to make the several rules consistent. Thus, while I wholly agree with the substance of Professor Dworkin's argument, I should, in my terminology, affirm that the law *is* a system (and not a mere collection) of (articulated and unarticulated) rules.»

[@Blackcomanche]

Did Hayek make this footnote in The Constitution of Liberty?

[@variztia]

@@Blackcomanche It is in the second volume of Law, Legislation and Liberty, originally published in 1976.

[@Blackcomanche]

@@variztia Thank you for answering my question!

[@pallabidutta968]

The "rules of recognition" are explicitly mentioned in every Constitution. While the principles and values are implicit in every law, whose utility or practical applicability lies in creating a fair and just society.

[@serversurfer6169]

🤔 Principles undoubtedly shape the legal system, but the principles are endemic to the _shapers,_ not the legal system itself. This is how you get judges making decisions that create law that is not in line with the principles of society at large, and consequently struggle to satisfy the rule of recognition. (The courts can make whatever narrow-minded judgements they like, but it doesn't matter if the rest of us simply ignore them.) This applies to the legislature as well. 🤷‍♂

[@sattarsyed5187]

Thankyou you’re a lifesaver

[@jeffreykaplan1]

You are welcome!

[@hannesproductions4302]

Great video thanks man

[@jeffreykaplan1]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mzamanichauke1051]

He is the best!

[@starrynight5615]

What is the best book to study jurisprudence

[@jeffreykaplan1]

The first half of Scott Shapiro's "Legality" is a very good introduction to the discipline. Also, You can go through my Philosophy of Law course: kzbin.info/aero/PL7YPshZMeLIYDwqvtqIHm9SOQpSeKVKU0 or just my lectures on Hart's "The Concept of Law" kzbin.info/aero/PL7YPshZMeLIbkhDcwdyhyCFlA6Na9nvn8

[@starrynight5615]

@@jeffreykaplan1 What book would you recommend for understanding criminal jurisprudence

[@starrynight5615]

@@jeffreykaplan1 thank you please recommend for this too

[@kimk3821]

Wow this channel and it's author belong in the future

[@bottomhead2518]

I don't see how "principles" make the "rules of recognition" fall apart. Both seem legit. To me, "principles" could be tucked into Hart's theory. Am I missing something?

[@dzelisx7031]

This helps

[@arthurchakanyuka496]

Brilliant

[@samueldesmondtuah1421]

For theory of law to be solid it must explain laws in democracies and dictatorship. This is what I tell my students. Dworkin theory seemed perfect if you only consider common law systems but very difficult to apply in Nazi Germany.

[@kaverious]

what i understood---- dworkin says that the institutions which will take up disputes and have to make a judgment that is not driven by a pre-concieved rule, they are making a historic or landmark judgement here. this judgement is only driven by what we call Principles which are basically in the spirit of the preamble or constitution or in spirit of justice..... these principle can be ,for eg.- equality is a principle and the SC is making a historic judgment which will later make a new law which is not based over a rule but a PRINCIPLE. and this PRINCIPLE was never talked about or stipulated by Hart. Hart has failed to properly formulise the middle road between primary and secondary rules since he couldn't talk about WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN FRONT OF LAW MAKERS/ LAW AMENDERS. AM I RIGHT????

[@Toasted355]

Thank you. Save hours of readings .

[@michaelbramberger4562]

Does This guy actually write backwards?

[@kleinpca]

He talks as if a vehicle necessarily has an engine, or at least that having an engine is relevant to judging whether something is a vehicle. But a bicycle is a vehicle.

[@gcvrsa]

Of course principles are part of our system of jurisprudence, at least, in the United States, and it would be silly to suggest otherwise. Take for example, the Declaration of Independence. It's manifestly true that the Declaration carries no force of law, yet the principles therein described (chiefly, equality, unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, etc., but also a laundry list of specific offenses against the rights of Americans by the King and Parliament, many of which will eventually be specifically addressed in the Bill of Rights) are indubitably the foundational principles upon which the Constitution, the actual law, is predicated.

[@ntanemohlala4907]

Saved meeeee 😭😭😭

[@harshverma3013]

Do you really write backwords ¿?¿?™

[@BrianSievers]

Dworkin Hart or Hart-ly Dworkin

[@jolynn89]

👌🏼

[@Max_Le_Groom]

You best thank God for cutesy anime songs.

[@maximilyen]

Isn't this guy great?

[@TheNaturalLawInstitute]

Jeffrey: Pet Peeve: Why don't you cover Blackstone, which contains the logic of the English and American constitutions, but you cover the philosophers who seek to circumvent that logic? This is a universal criticism of every major institution. The curriculum at the top half dozen law schools barely passes for sophistry. It's embarrassing.... ;)