The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

Ep. 304: Dworkin v. Hart on Legal Judgment (Part One)

On Ronald Dworkin's "The Model of Rules" (1967) and Scott J. Shapiro's "The 'Hart-Dworkin' Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed" (2007). How do judges make decisions in hard cases? When the law "runs out" and doesn't definitively decide an issue, do judges then just draw on their personal moral judgments? Dworkin says no, that moral principles are (contra Hart) built into the legal principles which guide judges, even if these principles are not written out in legal rules. Get more at <a href="https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/">partiallyexaminedlife.com</a>. Visit <a href="https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/support" rel="noopener" target="_blank">partiallyexaminedlife.com/support</a> to get ad-free episodes and tons of bonus discussion.

The Partially Examined Life is a podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a short text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don't have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we're talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion. For links to the texts we discuss and other info, check out www.partiallyexaminedlife.com.

We also feature episodes from other podcasts by our hosts to round out your partially examined life, including Pretty Much Pop (prettymuchpop.com, covering all media), Nakedly Examined Music (nakedlyexaminedmusic.com, deconstructing songs), Philosophy vs. Improv (philosophyimprov.com, fun with performance skills and philosophical ideas), and (sub)Text (subtextpodcast.com, looking deeply at lit and film). Learn about more network podcasts at partiallyexaminedlife.com.