Anti-Positivist Legal Theory

Dworkin's critique of legal positivism — the view that law is simply a set of rules identified by their social source — arguing that law includes principles that are morally binding even without explicit enactment.

Against positivism: legal positivism (Hart) holds that law consists only of rules identified by their source (legislature, precedent). Dworkin argues that legal reasoning routinely invokes principles — general moral standards — that are binding even though they were never explicitly enacted. The Riggs v. Palmer example: a murderer cannot inherit under his victim's will, even though no law explicitly says so, because of the principle that no man should profit from his own wrong. Principles are part of law, not merely moral guides that may supplement law.