Abstract

This dissertation argues for a position called "legal pluralism". According to legal pluralism, most legal decision-making, especially decision-making by judges in "hard cases", is best analyzed as the application of a plurality of legal values which often conflict. Moreover, legal pluralism claims that these conflicts often cannot be resolved, and therefore decision-making in law is genuinely indeterministic in many cases. The position contrasts with two common accounts of judicial decision-making in hard cases: the claim that judicial decision-making is significantly determinate and the claim that it is radically indeterminate . ;The first chapter argues for the first part of pluralism, namely that there is a plurality of legal values which typically conflict in hard cases of legal interpretation. It also argues against the doctrine of "intentionalism" which claims that determinacy can be achieved in legal interpretation by identifying the correct legal answer with the author's intended answer. The second chapter provides an extended analysis of Dworkin's doctrine of "law as integrity". It argues that Dworkin's theory of law is "monistic" in two senses. First, his theory attempts to provide a method for achieving deterministic decision-making; and secondly, his theory is committed to treating a single legal value--the value of "integrity"--as overriding. I claim that neither form of monism can plausibly be maintained. The third chapter argues that pluralism provides the best account of the special features of legal disagreement in hard cases and attempts to rebut counter-arguments suggesting that disagreement is epistemic disagreement only. The fourth and final chapter focuses on the nature of the values over which judges disagree. It proposes that the conflicts between values in some cases are genuine legal dilemmas because legal conflicts are often conflicts between "generically different" values or "incommensurable" values. In particular, "institutional" values--values which enhance the operation of law conceived as an institution having a certain function in society--are incommensurable with the values of substantive justice