Dworkin's theory that judges should interpret the law as if it were authored by a single coherent moral agent — finding the interpretation that best fits and justifies the legal practice as a whole.
Law as integrity: treat the law as a coherent moral narrative — past decisions set precedents that constrain future decisions, but the judge must interpret the precedents as expressing consistent principles. Fit and justification: the best interpretation must fit the legal record (not simply ignore inconvenient precedents) and must present it in its morally best light. Contrasts with conventionalism (law is just settled precedent) and pragmatism (judges can decide whatever produces the best future outcome).
Discussing
Ask anything about Law as Integrity — their ideas, influences, contradictions, legacy.
Sign in to start a conversation.