Good Argumentative Essay On Ronald Dworkin's "Law And Political Morality

Generally speaking, it is safe to say that Dworkin is trying to persuade us that morality and law is ultimately the same thing. He speaks about law and morality as two separate set of thoughts. Furthermore, Ronald Dworkin declares the complete independence of these two systems. However, at the same time one may say that he understands law as a department of the morality. Dworkin claims that it is possible to observe in what way one system affects the other. This raises the question whether we are morally obliged to obey the law.
The next point that must be highlighted is that Ronald Dworkin brings up the issue of interpretivism in parallel with natural law and positivism. It is safe to say that historically the content of morality has influenced the content of law. Throughout his speech, Dworkin states that morality is a “veto over law” (Holberg Prize Symposium 2007: Law And Political Morality). In addition, he claims that if a law is immoral it is not true law at all and he also admits that I extreme cases morality may result from the law. One can see his own view on interpretivism that he describes as denial of both the “veto” position of morality over law and the complete independence of law and morality.
Coupled with all mentioned above, Ronald Dworkin understands legal system as consisting of rules as well as principles. He says that these principles are those which “provide the best justification in morality of . . . enacted rules.” (Holberg Prize Symposium 2007: Law And Political Morality) It is possible to state, that according to Dworking’s theory, the very law flows from the morality, so here it is possible to see the origin of it, and the connection between these two bodies.
After all things considered, I suppose that it is perfectly safe to say that the pattern of the part and whole that one could see during Dworking’s speech, is basically his own main and dominant concept. The connection of the law and morality is very simple and understandable - law is a part or aspect of morality. The answer to the question how law transforms into a part of morality as Dworkin suppose, “will capitalize on the phenomenon of institutionalization.” (Holberg Prize Symposium 2007: Law And Political Morality) As I see it Dworkin wants to get out a message that “in many circumstances moral facts figure among the basic truth conditions of propositions of law”. (Holberg Prize Symposium 2007: Law And Political Morality) I do not understand why Dworkin want us to view law and morality as one system instead of two with morality being considered as a whole and law as a part of it.
I agree with Ronald Dworkin, concerning the morality and law. I think it is true, and it can be applied to the human nature. Of course, there are some implications dealing with this so to say system. We know that law is created to render justice, sometimes, it is impossible to apply it, and the system of law could create injustice. On the other hand, morality could sometimes also create injustice. It is very hard to speak about the implication on this matter, as it varies from case to case.

Work Cited

Holberg Prize Symposium 2007: Law And Political Morality. 2012.