In this paper I defend a liberal theory about how legal rules can and ought to be interpreted. The theory emerges from a critical examination of H. L. A. Hart's influential views on the limited but unavoidable indeterminacy of legal rules. I begin with a brief sketch of Hart's early theory (as it is traditionally understood) offering various suggestions as to how it might usefully be modified. Next, several possible objections to my modifications are sketched and criticized. Finally, reasons are (...) provided for supposing that the modified theory may well represent Hart's current position. (shrink)
In this article, I critically evaluate the positions of Professors Jeremy Waldron and W.J. Waluchow on the right-based merits of entrenched constitutions and strong judicial review. I support Waluchow in arguing that (i) prohibitions on the constitutional entrenchment of rights and resultant prohibitions of strong judicial review may be only superficially fair or democratic, since fair procedure alone can neither eliminate pre-existing inequalities nor ultimately take the autonomy vital to self-governance seriously (whether individual or collective). Secondly, (ii) if (...) deep dissensus fails to exist on all substantive matters of rights, the constitutional entrenchment of rights combined with strong judicial review can indeed be achieved fairly. I then propose that (iii) the anti-constitutionalist concern about being governed by the ‘dead hand of the past’ is self-refuting, for the alternative is simply another constraint on autonomy. While this is largely consistent with Waluchow's position vis-à-vis Waldron's majoritarianism, I end by expressing serious concerns regarding whether the common law (and the ‘constitutional morality’ that Waluchow claims can be derived from it) can act as a sufficiently robust basis for the protection of liberal and egalitarian rights. (shrink)
In the course of his argument for a common law conception of Constitu- tional Bills of Rights and judicial review, Wil Waluchow claims that there is a principled distinction to be drawn between a community’s ‘opinions’ or ‘mere moral preferences’ and its ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ moral commitments. Moreover, he argues that it is possible for judges to identify a community’s authentic moral commitments and apply them to decide particular cases. If he is right, it is not the case that (...) judges, in making a decision about the application and scope of constitutional rights, are inevitably importing their own subjective moral standards into the decision. I analyze Waluchow’s use of the moral opinions -moral commitments distinction. I argue first that the distinction presupposes a descriptive methodology of constitutional interpretation. I suggest however, that the methodology of interpretation in Bills of Rights cases is constructive and involves substantive, ‘evaluative and justificatory’ reasoning by interpreters and judges. I then argue that the moral opinions-moral commitments distinction either cannot do the work that Waluchow’s argument requires, or, if it is modified to do the work, it becomes a substantive distinction. A substantive conception of authenticity creates a problem for Waluchow because it undermines his purely procedural account of democratic self-governance.Resumen:Wil Waluchow al desarrollar su argumento a favor de una concepción propia del common law para las constituciones y para el judicial review, sostiene que existe una distinción de principio entre las “opiniones” de la comunidad o sus “simples preferencias morales” y los compromisos morales “verdaderos” o “auténticos”. Además, sostiene que para los jueces es posible identificar los compromisos morales auténticos de una comunidad y aplicar los mismos en la decisión de casos concretos. Si tiene razón, entonces los jueces al decidir casos concretos sobre el alcance de los derechos constitucionales no canalizan sus propios estándares mora- les subjetivos a las decisiones. En este estudio analizo el uso que hace Waluchow de la distinción entre opiniones morales y compromisos morales. Argumento en primer término que la distinción presupone una metodología descriptiva de la interpretación constitucional, y sugiero que no obstante lo anterior, la metodología de interpretación de los derechos constitucionales es constructiva e implica por parte de los intérpretes y jueces un razonamiento “evaluativo y de justificación” sustantivo. Posteriormente argumento que la distinción entre opiniones morales y compromisos morales no tiene el alcance que pretende y requiere el trabajo de Waluchow y si se modifica, entonces se convierte en una distinción sustantiva. Una concepción sustantiva de autenticidad le genera un problema a Waluchow porque debilita su explicación puramente procedi- mental de un auto-gobierno democrático. (shrink)
This book develops a general philosophical theory about the nature of law and its relationship with morality called inclusive legal positivism. In addition to articulating and defending his own version of legal positivism, which is a refinement and development of the views of H.L.A. Hart as expressed in his classic book The Concept of Law, the author clarifies the terms of current jurisprudential debates about the nature of law. These debates are often clouded by failures to appreciate that different theorists (...) are offering different kinds of theories and attempting to answer different questions. The clarity of Waluchow's work will help to remove the confusion often present in jurisprudential debate. (shrink)
In this study, W. J. Waluchow argues that debates between defenders and critics of constitutional bills of rights presuppose that constitutions are more or less rigid entities. Within such a conception, constitutions aspire to establish stable, fixed points of agreement and pre-commitment, which defenders consider to be possible and desirable, while critics deem impossible and undesirable. Drawing on reflections about the nature of law, constitutions, the common law, and what it is to be a democratic representative, Waluchow urges (...) a different theory of bills of rights that is flexible and adaptable. Adopting such a theory enables one not only to answer to critics' most serious challenges, but also to appreciate the role that a bill of rights, interpreted and enforced by unelected judges, can sensibly play in a constitutional democracy. (shrink)
Well and Good presents a combination of "classic" and little-known but real-life cases. Included are a range of cases involving nurses and other health professionals as well as many involving doctors. The cases in the main body of the book are accompanied by the editors' impartial discussions of the issues involved. The final section is comprised of unanalysed cases for further study. For the new edition, the introduction has been expanded to include discussions of feminist bioethics and of virtue ethics, (...) alongside the Kantian, Rossian and utilitarian frameworks discussed in previous editions. Most of the existing cases have been updated to reflect these additional foci, and four analysed cases have been added. Several cases have been added to the group of unanalysed cases, which now includes questions for discussion. Among cases new to this edition are the "mercy killing" case of Robert Latimer, the assisted suicide of Sue Rodriguez, the pregnancy solvent-abuse case of Ms. G., and a case involving sex-selection and abortion on gender grounds. (shrink)
Well and Good presents a combination of "classic" and little-known cases in health care ethics. These cases, accompanied by information about the major ethical theories, give students a chance to grapple with the ethical challenges faced by health care practitioners, policy makers, and recipients. The authors' narrative style and leading questions provoke student interest and engagement, while allowing instructors the freedom to draw from the theoretical perspectives they consider most useful. This fourth edition includes an expanded discussion of feminist ethics, (...) and new cases addressing pandemic ethics, humanitarian aid, the social determinants of health, research and aboriginal communities, and a number of other emerging issues. (shrink)
Readings in Health Care Ethics provides a wide-ranging selection of important and engaging contributions to the field of health care ethics. The second edition adds a chapter on health care in Canada, and the introduction has been expanded to include discussion of a new direction in feminist naturalized ethics. The book presupposes no prior knowledge, only an interest in the bioethical issues that are shaping our world.
Readings in Health Care Ethics provides a wide-ranging selection of important and engaging contributions to the field of health care ethics. The second edition adds a chapter on health care in Canada, and the introduction has been expanded to include discussion of a new direction in feminist naturalized ethics. The book presupposes no prior knowledge, only an interest in the bioethical issues that are shaping our world.
In this paper, I defend H. L. A. Hart against two prevalent criticisms of his views on social rules and the obligations with which these rules are often associated. These criticisms, I argue, rely on misunderstandings ormischaracterizations of what Hart actually intended. These misunderstandings are plausibly explained by a failure on the part of his critics to appreciate fully two of the valuable lessons Hart sought to communicate in his inaugural lecture. First, words like ‘rule’ and ‘obligation’ should not be (...) removed from their various contexts of use and subjected to abstract philosophical definition and analysis. Second, when analyzing assertions in which such words figure in both legal practice and theory, it is crucial to bear in mind the different functions these assertions can be made to serve and the different purposes to which they can be put. -/- . (shrink)
Constitutional Charters or Bill of Rights have been applauded because of the protection they provide to minorities and also in ensuring and protecting fundamental rights, however, Charters have been criticized for being considered morally and politically objectionable. The author responds to Charter critics most serious objections and offers some reasons for adopting an alternative framework.
This book assembles leading legal, political, and moral philosophers to examine the legacy of the work of Ronald Dworkin. They provide the most comprehensive critical treatment of Dworkin's accomplishments focusing on his work in all branches of philosophy, including his theory of value, political philosophy, philosophy of international law, and legal philosophy. The book's organizing principle and theme reflect Dworkin's self-conception as a builder of a unified theory of value, and the broad outlines of his system can be found throughout (...) the book. The first section addresses the most abstract and general aspect of Dworkin's work--the unity of value thesis. The second section explores Dworkin's contributions to political philosophy, and discusses a number of political concepts including authority, civil disobedience, the legitimacy of states and the international legal system, distributive justice, collective responsibility, and Dworkin's master value of dignity and the associated values of equal concern and respect. The third section addresses various aspects of Dworkin's general theory of law. The fourth and final section comprises accounts of the structure and defining values of discrete areas of law. (shrink)
In this paper I defend constitutional review against the charge that it neces- sarily runs afoul of democratic principle. In so doing, I draw both on Dworkin’s theory of constructive interpretation as well as Raz’s theory of detached normative statements and reasoning from a point of view. After arguing that constructive interpretation can be undertaken from a point of view other than that of the interpreter, I go on to argue for the following claims: (1) Constitutional interpretation and review can (...) be undertaken from the point of view of the democratic community and its constitutional morality; (2) This process can be undertaken by a judge without the deliberate intrusion of her own personal moral convictions; (3) When undertaken from this point of view, constitutional interpretation and review can be rendered consistent with democracy; and (4) This is so even when these activities require a good deal of substantive moral reasoning and argument on the part of judges. (shrink)
Recent years have witnessed major developments in philosophical inquiry concerning the nature of law and, with the growth of transnational legal institutions, in the phenomenon of law itself. This volume gathers leading writers in the field to take stock of current debates on the nature of law and the aims and methods of legal philosophy.
The Dimensions of Ethics offers a concise but wide-ranging introduction to moral philosophy. In clear and engaging fashion, the author first examines the scope of ethical theory, and explores central metaethical questions such as the issue of relativism, and the relationship between morality and religion. He then turns to an exploration of five theoretical approaches, in each case providing a consideration of various objections that have been advanced as well as a sympathetic exposition of the core principles of each approach. (...) Throughout he uses a wide range of examples, and integrates references to issues in applied ethics with his discussions of ethical theory. (shrink)
The author's primary objective is to show that versions of legal positivism, according to which legal validity sometimes depends on moral validity (Inclusive Legal Positivism), are theoretically preferable to those forms of positivism (Exclusive Legal Positivism) which deny this possibility. The author attempts to substantiate this conclusion by demonstrating that Inclusive Legal Positivism provides a better theoretical account of challenges to legal validity based on a document like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. His secondary aim is to show (...) that the choice between Inclusive and Exclusive Legal Positivism can have important consequences for legal practice. (shrink)
This paper is an exploration of the concept equal value as it applies to pay equity. Following a brief discussion of several standard objections to pay equity legislation, the paper considers a number of different criteria which are employed in determining equal value or worth. Two in particular are isolated for extended discussion: the desert and the contribution criteria. The paper concludes with a major concern about the phrase equal value to the employer. This concern becomes pressing once the desert (...) and contribution criteria are distinguished. (shrink)
-/- In his rich and thoughtful paper, Richard Bellamy sketches a theory of individual rights that ascribes to them an inherently democratic character that “is best captured by a republican view of liberty as non-domination, rather than the standard liberal account of liberty as non-interference.” According to this view, “rights involve an implicit appeal to democratic forms of reasoning.” That is, the only justifiable “foundation of rights must be some form of ongoing democratic decision making that allows rights to be (...) claimed under conditions of political equality.” Bellamy uses this particular model of rights to defend a somewhat unique thesis concerning the legitimacy of judicial review under a constitutional charter or bill of rights (henceforth constitutional review). Many legal theorists question whether constitutional review can ever be rendered consistent with the theoretical and practical demands of democracy. According to these theorists, democracy embodies a form of self-rule whereby the members of a society establish and exercise legitimate authority over themselves. But self-rule seems seriously compromised once constitutional review enters the picture. Instead of having the people and their elected representatives setting the basic terms of social cooperation, we have instead a small group of elite, unelected, and unaccountable judges performing this vital task. Constitutional review empowers these individuals, in constitutional review cases, to substitute their own contestable views and preferences with respect to the basic terms of social cooperation for the duly considered views and preferences of the people and those whom they have duly elected to represent them. This is something one simply cannot tolerate in a democracy. (shrink)
