Ronald Dworkin's foundational collection of essays arguing that rights are 'trumps' — they override utilitarian calculations — and that legal positivism fundamentally misunderstands the nature of law.
Rights as trumps: individual rights cannot be overridden simply because doing so would produce greater overall utility — rights have a special weight. Critique of Hart's legal positivism: law is not just a set of rules but includes principles and policies — the Riggs v. Palmer example (murderer can't inherit). The right answer thesis: hard cases in law have right answers that judges must find through interpretive effort.
Discussing
Ask anything about Taking Rights Seriously — their ideas, influences, contradictions, legacy.
Sign in to start a conversation.