DOCSLIB.ORG

Animals: Moral Rights and Legal Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animals: Moral Rights and Legal Rights ANIMALS: MORAL RIGHTS AND LEGAL RIGHTS CHARLES MAGEL M:x>rehead State University I would like to organize my corrments on the moral and legal issues having to do with animals by asking two fundamental questions: Should animals have moral standing, and Should animals have legal standing? self was quite rational, but he was also convinced that many hUIll3D.s were not rational Since most of my research has been in or, at least, not very rational, especially the area of moral philosophy and very little female humans and slave humans. so, he ra­ in the philosophy of law, I will have more to tionally drew the conclusion that both sexism say in regard to the first question than in and slavery were justified. relation to the second. Not only within the Greek philosophical Let us consider the first question: tradition but also within orthodox Christian­ Should animals have moral standing? What ity, there has been a persistent denial of would it be for an animal not to have moral the moral standing of animals. The most standing, not to count for anything morally prominent and clear example was in the thir­ whatsoever? Consider an example: Joe gets teenth century: st. Thomas Aquinas. Blend­ his kicks out of clubbing calves. He just ing Aristotelianism with the daninion theory loves to smash the heads of calves. To say of the Bible, Aquinas claimed that by divine that the calves have no moral standing would providence the animals are intended for human be to say that they count for nothing moral­ use, and, therefore, it is not wrong for ly. It would mean that Joe does nothing hUIll3D.s to make use of animals, either by wrong as far as the calves themselves are killing or in any other way whatever. True, concernedi although physically damaged, the St. Thomas was against cruelty to animals. calves could not be morally harmed, they But the only reason, or at least the basic could not be morally injured. The calves reason, he was against cruelty was that if would not be the subjects of interests which humans are cruel to animals, then they will, could in any way be violated. And if Joe did he thought, as a matter of fact, tend to be all of his head smashing on a deserted island cruel to other human beings• Given that Joe with no other"hUIll3D. beings around to either smashes calves' heads on a deserted island, see or hear about these clubbings, Joe's Aquinas would be canmitted to the view that actions would, from the moral standpoint, be nothing wrong is done to the calves. The completely neutral. They would be what we action would be morally indifferent as far as might call "amoral," that is, without any the calves are concerned. moral significance whatsoever. In the seventeenth century, the influen­ The history of Western culture and phil­ tial French philosopher Rene Descartes cate­ osophy reveals a very persistent tendency to gorically denied that animals should have any say "no" to the question: Should animals moral standing. Since animals are soulless, have moral standing? The Greeks, including are mindless machines, as mechanical as Plato and especially Aristotle, said "no": on the basis of the criterion of rationality. Only rational beings are to count for some­ thing morally. Only hUIll3D.s are rational. Animals are not rational. Therefore, animals should count for nothing morally, and animals PHILOSOPHY should be used as instruments to serve the interest of rational hUIll3D.s. Aristotle him­ 9 BE'IWEEN THE SP.EX::IES clocks, it is impossible that animals could rational, but we are convinced that human be hurt. When Joe clubs calves, they feel no infants and the severely retarded should IlOre pain that does a clock when it is count for something IlOrally. It is too broad smashed. Calves have no awareness, no con­ in that behavioral and ecological studies are sciousness, no ability to experience either leading to the conclusion that many animals pain or pleasure. It follows, then, that it have some rational capacity. is impossible that an animal could be IlOrally hanned or benefitted. Psychologist David Premack has given serious consideration to the hypothesis that Another Western philosoI,iler of enorllOus primates have the concept of causality and influence was the eighteenth century Gennan, that they make inferences on the basis of Imnanuel Kant. His philosophy has been espe­ this concept. [I] St. Thomas Aquinas' theory, cially important in developing the foundation being a theological theory, has all the weak­ for human rights. For example, the human nesses that theological theories, finally right to life, the human right not to be based on faith, have. They can produce no hanned, the human right to freedom. Kant rational grounds for accepting. the theory• claimed that only rational, self-conscious Other religions have recognized the IlOral human beings counted for anything IlOrally. standing of animals, for example, Buddhism Kant is fallOus for his Categorical Impera­ and Hinduism. Which re~igion is correct? tive, which goes something like this: ra­ And even if one were to accept the theologic­ tional self-conscious human beings should al dominion theory, the view that humans were always be treated as ends in themselves and given rule over the animals, there are two never as mere means, never as mere instru­ opposed interpretations of the concept "do­ mental resources. All other beings, includ­ minion." Does "daninion" mean rule over the ing all animals, could and should be used as animals for the sake of humans? We might mere means to serve the interest of the self­ call this "the tyrannical interpretation" of conscious, rational humans. To be sure, Kant dominion. Or does the concept "daninion" was against cruelty to animals--but for ex­ mean rule over the animals for the sake of actly the same reasons given by St. Thomas. the animals? We might call this "the stew­ Cruelty to animals, he thought, would have a ardship interpretation." St. Thomas gave the tendency to result in humans being cruel to tyrannical interpretation, but there are humans. For example, the clubbed calves contemporary theologians who argue that the counted for nothing whatever IlOrally in and stewardship interpretation is rrbre correct. of themselves. And on a deserted island, Joe's head-smashing activities would be can­ Or, consider Imnanuel Kant's theory' pletely aIlOral as far as the calves are con­ based on rationality and self-consciousness. cerned, without any IlOral significance what­ This has also been criticized as being both soever. too narrow and too broad. His theory would result in two-week old human infants and There are other theories which have an­ severely retarded humans counting for nothing swered "no" to our first question, but we do IlOrally. This criterion is too broad--from not have time to explore them. Let us take a the perspective of anthropocentric tradition look at the theories which say "yes" to the --in that i·t would give IlOral standing to question: Should animals have IlOral many animals. standing? These two theories are utilitari­ anism and the IlOral right theory. These two The I,ililosoI,ilers Peter Singer[ 2] and Tan theories are both negative and positive. Regan[3] have effectively argued that many They are negative in that they criticize the animals are capable of intentional behavior former theories which deny any IlOral stand­ and that intentional behavior necessitates ing to animals, and they are positive in that some self-consciousness, at least an aware­ they· attempt to provide theories which will ness of oneself as being distinct from other serve as a basis for giving IlOral standing to things in the environment, and also awareness animals. of oneself as enduring through time, past, present, and future. Let us first briefly consider criticisms of the past "no-sayers." Aristotle's ration­ Descartes' machine theory of animals has ality criterion is both too narrow and too been heavily and decisively, I believe, cri­ broad. It is too narrow in that human in­ ticized by both scientists and philosophers. fants and severely retarded humans are not Given the silllilarities of the nerve and brain BEI'WEEN THE SPOCIFS 10 structures and in behaviors of animals and pleasure over pain for all sentient beings-­ humans, there is strong evidence to reject human and nonhuman--affected on this planet the Cartesian theory. Evolutionists empha­ would be maximized if the factory farming of size the survival value implicit in the capa­ food animals were discontinued and if humans city to experience pleasure and pain. How switched from a factory farmed animal diet to could pain and pleasure have survival value a vegetarian diet. Singer also concludes if the animals experience no pain or plea­ that the elimination of m::>st of the current sure? experimentation on animals would maximize the net balance of pleasure over pain for all Having briefly considered the criticisms sentient beings--once again, human and nonhu­ of the "no-saying" theories, let us now take man--affected. For the utilitarian, Joe's a look at the two kinds of theories held by activity of smashing calves' heads on a de­ those who say "yes" to the question: Should serted island would be an action with m::>ral animals have m::>ral standing? significance, or perhaps better, ilrmoral significance. All calves and all sentient First, utilitarianism: Jeremy Bentham animals COtmt for something m::>rally, have (eighteenth and nineteenth century, English) IOC>ral standing, according to utilitarian and John stuart Mill (nineteenth century, theory. English, and a follower of Bentham) systema­ tically developed the classical utilitarian A m::>ral rights theory is a still strong­ theory.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Centrality of Practical Reason: Dworkin and Kant
    The centrality of practical reason: Dworkin and Kant In one of his latest books Justice for Hedgehogs (2011) Ronald Dworkin presents a thorough critique of contemporary ethical discourse. Explicitly his arguments mostly seek to undermine the main premises of metaethics, especially, the assumption that it is possible to think and talk about ethics from a neutral Archimedian position and to find its grounding in scientific or metaphysical facts. Moreover, he aims to present his own position as a specific revolution – a position which questions all the ways of approaching ethics that dominate or influence the field of moral philosophy since modern times, namely Descartes. There have been many attempts to criticize, question and evaluate this critique, its accuracy and extent.1 However, much less effort have been made to properly and comprehensively evaluate the constructive and potential side of Dworkin’s position. The main question that his critique of contemporary ethical discourse raises is ‘How should we approach ethical questions and problems?’ or ‘How should we do moral philosophy?’ Such questions are essential for the discourse itself. They should determine not only the shape and methods, but also the future and raison d’etre of ethical theory as such. Dworkin himself takes Hume to be the inspiration for his revolution. According to Dworkin, Hume’s distinction between fact and value gives us a clear guidance as to how we should proceed in ethical discourse. Dworkin develops this distinction as his main argument that ethics is an independent domain of thought. However, my paper argues, that despite Dworkin’s appeal of Hume, his position cannot be seen as Humean and is much more akin to Kant as there are several substantial conformities between their theories and premises.
    [Show full text]
  • "Suggestions for Further Reading." Censorship Moments: Reading Texts in the History of Censorship and Freedom of Expression
    "Suggestions for Further Reading." Censorship Moments: Reading Texts in the History of Censorship and Freedom of Expression. Ed. Geoff Kemp. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015. 195–202. Textual Moments in the History of Political Thought. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 26 Sep. 2021. <>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 26 September 2021, 01:37 UTC. Copyright © Geoff Kemp and contributors 2015. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. Suggestions for Further Reading Given the substantial quantity of writing on most of the thinkers and many of the works covered in this volume, the following list is necessarily highly selective. For each work an attempt has been made to include a readily available reliable text in English (sometimes available online), in some cases a scholarly edition, and several works which help to contextualize the principal text and scholarly discussion of it. Plutarch’s Life of Cato Plutarch, ‘Marcus Cato’, in Plutarch’s Lives, accessible at www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/ text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a2008.01.0013 [accessed 18 May 2014]. Alan E. Astin, Cato the Censor (Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1978). Arlene W. Saxonhouse, Free Speech and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Robin Waterfield, Why Socrates Died: Dispelling the Myths (New York: Norton, 2009). Dana Villa, Socratic Citizenship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001). Tacitus’s Annals Tacitus, The Annals, translated by A.J. Woodman (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2004). Shadi Bartsch, Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot
    A Backdoor to Policy Making: The Use of Philosophers by the Supreme Court Neomi Raot The Supreme Court's decisions in Vacco v Quill' and Wash- ington v Glucksberg2 held that a state can ban assisted suicide without violating the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In these high profile cases, six phi- losophers filed an amicus brief ("Philosophers'Brief') that argued for the recognition of a constitutional right to die.3 Although the brief was written by six of the most prominent American philoso- phers-Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, Thomas Scanlon, and Judith Jarvis Thomson-the Court made no mention of the brief in unanimously reaching the oppo- site conclusion.4 In light of the Court's recent failure to engage philosophical arguments, this Comment examines the conditions under which philosophy does and should affect judicial decision making. These questions are relevant in considering the proper role of the Court in controversial political questions and are central to a recent de- bate focusing on whether the law can still be considered an autonomous discipline that relies only on traditional legal sources. Scholars concerned with law and economics and critical legal studies have argued that the law is no longer autonomous, but rather that it does and should draw on many external sources in order to resolve legal disputes. Critics of this view have main- tained that legal reasoning is distinct from other disciplines, and that the law has and should maintain its own methods, conven- tions, and conclusions. This Comment follows the latter group of scholars, and ar- gues that the Court should, as it did in the right-to-die cases, stay clear of philosophy and base its decisions on history, precedent, and a recognition of the limits of judicial authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Guide to Mill's on Liberty
    This page intentionally left blank MILL’S ON LIBERTY John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty, published in 1859, has had a powerful impact on philosophical and political debates ever since its first appearance. This volume of newly commissioned essays covers the whole range of problems raised in and by the essay, including the concept of liberty, the toleration of diversity, freedom of expression, the value of allowing “experiments in living,” the basis of individual liberty, multiculturalism, and the claims of minority cultural groups. Mill’s views have been fiercely contested, and they are at the center of many contemporary debates. The essays are by leading scholars, who systematically and eloquently explore Mill’s views from various per spectives. The volume will appeal to a wide range of readers including those interested in political philosophy and the history of ideas. c. l. ten is Professor of Philosophy at the National University of Singapore. His publications include Was Mill a Liberal? (2004) and Multiculturalism and the Value of Diversity (2004). cambridge critical guides Volumes published in the series thus far: Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit edited by dean moyar and michael quante Mill’s On Liberty edited by c. l. ten MILL’S On Liberty A Critical Guide edited by C. L. TEN National University of Singapore CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521873567 © Cambridge University Press 2008 This publication is in copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Dignity After Augustine's Imago Dei: on the Sources and Uses of Two Ethical Terms Matthew Puffer Valparaiso University, [email protected]
    Valparaiso University ValpoScholar Christ College Faculty Publications Christ College (Honors College) Spring 2017 Human Dignity After Augustine's Imago Dei: On the Sources and Uses of Two Ethical Terms Matthew Puffer Valparaiso University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.valpo.edu/cc_fac_pub Recommended Citation Matthew Puffer, "Human Dignity After Augustine's Imago Dei: On the Sources and Uses of Two Ethical Terms" Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, 37, 1 (2017): 65–82. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Christ College (Honors College) at ValpoScholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christ College Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ValpoScholar. For more information, please contact a ValpoScholar staff member at [email protected]. Human Dignity after Augustine's Imago Dei : On the Sources and Uses of Two Ethical Terms Matthew Puffer Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics, Volume 37, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2017, pp. 65-82 (Article) Published by The Society of Christian Ethics DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/sce.2017.0010 For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/665905 Access provided by Valparaiso University (16 Mar 2018 16:03 GMT) Human Dignity after Augustine’s Imago Dei: On the Sources and Uses of Two Ethical Terms Matthew Puffer This essay considers how Augustine’s writings on the imago Dei might shed light on contemporary human dignity discourse and on debates about the sources, uses, and translations of these two terms. Attending to developments in Augustine’s expositions of scriptural texts and metaphors related to the ima- go Dei, I argue that his writings exhibit three distinct conceptions of the imago Dei that correspond to three accounts of the imago Dei and human dignity offered by Pico, Luther, and Aquinas, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community
    Michigan Law Review Volume 90 Issue 4 1992 Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community Stephen A. Gardbaum Northwestern University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Public Law and Legal Theory Commons Recommended Citation Stephen A. Gardbaum, Law, Politics, and the Claims of Community, 90 MICH. L. REV. 685 (1992). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol90/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LAW, POLITICS, AND THE CLAIMS OF COMMUNITYt Stephen A. Gardbaum * TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • . • . • . • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • . • • • • . 686 I. COMMUNITY IN CONTEMPORARY MORAL AND POLITICAL THEORY. • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • . • . • • • 690 A. Three Communitarian Claims. 690 B. Three Communitarian Debates . 692 C. Fostering the Value of Community . 695 D. The Agency Debate . 701 E. The Metaethical Debate . 705 1. Rorty: Liberalism Goes Postmodern . 707 2. Walzer: Moral Philosophy as Interpretation . 710 3. Habermas: The Guardian of Rationality . 712 4. Metaethical and Strong Communitarianism . 717 F. The Political Debate: The Nature and Variety of Substantive Community . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 719 1. Conservative Community . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 719 2. Republican Community .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 723 a. General Features . 723 b. Altruism and Civic Virtue . 728 3. Communist Community .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 730 II. COMMUNITY IN CONTEMPORARY LEGAL THEORY • . • . 732 A. Antiatomism . 733 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Ronald Dworkin
    VOLUME 127 DECEMBER 2013 NUMBER 2 © 2013 by The Harvard Law Review Association IN MEMORIAM: RONALD DWORKIN The editors of the Harvard Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Professor Ronald Dworkin. Richard H. Fallon, Jr.∗ My first exposure to Ronald Dworkin came at Oxford, in the fall of 1975. Although I was there to study Philosophy, Politics, and Eco- nomics, not Law, friends told me that Professor Dworkin’s packed lec- tures on jurisprudence were not to be missed. They were right. Dworkin delivered the most commanding lectures that I had ever heard, at Oxford or anywhere else. Plainly relishing the engagement of his rapt audience, and speaking entirely without notes, he worked his way through, and demolished, various thinkers’ accounts of what made it the case, if it was the case, that “The law is that P.” The cri- tiques built inexorably to the conclusion that first made Dworkin fa- mous: decision of hard cases requires a process of interpretation in which principles, not just “pedigreed” rules, help to make it the case, if it is the case, that “The law is that P.” In one way, Dworkin was the very model of an Oxford philosopher. Though dense, his arguments were clear. He was a master of distinc- tions. But in another way, Dworkin was a gust of fresh air blowing through the ancient university during my two years there. To make his points, he used vivid, often funny examples. After skewering one position or another, he would pause to invite questions and challenges. Challenges came frequently because Dworkin’s largest target was his eminent predecessor as Oxford’s Professor of Jurisprudence, H.
    [Show full text]
  • ARISTOTLE and the CONCEPT of LAW John T. Valauri
    VALAURI_GALLEYS 5/10/2011 10:10:34 AM DIALECTICAL JURISPRUDENCE: ARISTOTLE AND THE CONCEPT OF LAW John T. Valauri* General theories of law struggle to do justice to the multiple dualities of the law.1 INTRODUCTION Western law, culture, and philosophy thought that they were say- ing goodbye to Aristotle as they entered into modernity, only now to find the ancient philosopher standing in wait as they leave mod- ernity and enter into post-modernity. But what use do we have for Aristotle at this time? He can perform a valuable service for us—he offers a therapy for the “bipolar disorder”2 in contemporary juris- prudence and philosophy.3 This disorder is manifested in the wide- spread tendency to approach and analyze philosophical topics as dueling dichotomies, incapable of resolution or reconciliation. It is all too often assumed at the outset that one is faced with a stark ei- ther/or sort of choice between alternatives, so participants in the philosophical debates arising out of this approach typically take one side of the dichotomy and see it as their task to marginalize and di- minish the other side of the dichotomy.4 H.L.A. Hart diagnosed one case of this disorder in his famous depiction of American jurispru- dence as torn between the noble dream that judges can always *- Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University. B.A., 1972; J.D., 1975, Harvard. 1. JOSEPH RAZ, BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND INTERPRETATION 1 (2009). 2. In this Article, I will use the notion of a “bipolar disorder” in philosophy in a broader way to refer to a more general dichotomy problem common today in approaches to philoso- phical topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Keynote Address
    KEYNOTE ADDRESS JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS ∗ RONALD DWORKIN Some of you, probably too many of you, have heard me talk about Learned Hand’s vision of heaven.1 You will be relieved to know that I now have my own vision of heaven: lots of people, including among them among the most distinguished philosophers and lawyers in the world, have come together to discuss a book of mine. As if that weren’t good enough, they discuss it before I’ve actually finished writing it so I can benefit from what they say. That isn’t the best part. The best part is that I don’t even have to die. I will use these opening comments to offer an advance summary of the book, but with a difference. The book begins in questions of metaethics, which are among the most technical philosophical topics of the book, and it ends in an extended discussion of political morality.2 In these remarks, I will proceed in the opposite direction. I’ll start by describing the political settlement I regard as required by justice. I’ll then try to illustrate my claims about the unity of value by showing how each part of that political settlement fans out into a large variety of other questions, questions that meet one another ∗ Professor of Philosophy and Frank Henry Sommer Professor of Law at New York University and Emeritus Professor of Jurisprudence at University College London. This is a transcript of the Keynote Address I gave at the Boston University School of Law Symposium, Justice for Hedgehogs: A Conference on Ronald Dworkin’s Forthcoming Book, September 25-26, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft – Please Do Not Cite Or Circulate WHAT ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY
    Draft – Please do not cite or circulate WHAT ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT JUSTIFY: A DISCUSSION OF RONALD DWORKIN’S JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS 1 F. M. Kamm 1. Ethics and Morality . Ronald Dworkin argues in Justice for Hedgehogs that ethics (to be distinguished from morality) is based on dignity, which involves, first, the requirement that one think of oneself and one’s life as objectively and intrinsically important (self-respect) and, second, the special responsibility that one has to oneself (in part because one is important) to live well. 2 This responsibility involves seeking to live a good life, understood as pursuing success according to one’s independently chosen goals and values (authenticity)—for otherwise one will not have really “lived one’s own life”—but within moral constraints that have to do with relations with others. The ethical responsibility to make a success of one’s life is different from a mere personal preference for oneself. And a person must choose goals and values in response to what he takes to have objective ethical value. This implies that one could make the wrong choice of goals and values, and then one will not have lived successfully. (But perhaps one still lived with dignity because one took one’s life seriously and lived according to one’s own views of objective value?)3 Dworkin emphasizes that one can live well even if one’s life is not good (a success) because one abides by moral constraints when they conflict with success, and he (reluctantly) concedes that one’s life could still be good (successful) if one violated moral constraints (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Dworkin's Incomplete Interpretation of Democracy Alexander Latham
    Washington University Jurisprudence Review Volume 10 | Issue 2 2018 Dworkin's Incomplete Interpretation of Democracy Alexander Latham Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence Part of the Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Legal History Commons, Legal Theory Commons, and the Rule of Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexander Latham, Dworkin's Incomplete Interpretation of Democracy, 10 Wash. U. Jur. Rev. 155 (2018). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_jurisprudence/vol10/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Jurisprudence Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Jurisprudence Review VOLUME 10 NUMBER 2 2018 DWORKIN’S INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION OF DEMOCRACY ALEXANDER LATHAM * ABSTRACT This essay mounts an immanent critique of Dworkin’s defense of judicial review. Taking Dworkin’s methodology of constructive interpretation as my starting point, I argue that when analyzing the role that political institutions play in democracy, Dworkin fails to take his own method far enough. In particular, he limits his constructive interpretation of democracy to the practice of voting, overlooking the distinctive democratic values implicit within the institutions and practices of legislation by representative assembly. Ironically, given his well-known critique of majoritarian democracy, this failure leads Dworkin to adopt majoritarianism as a starting point when assessing particular institutions. A more thoroughgoing interpretation of democratic practices would identify certain nonmajoritarian virtues of legislatures, making the case for judicial review less clear-cut than Dworkin’s incomplete interpretation suggests.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Rawls and Constitutional Theory: Does It Really Taste That Much Better?
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1994 The ewN Rawls and Constitutional Theory: Does It Really Taste that Much Better? Michael P. Zuckert Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Zuckert, Michael P., "The eN w Rawls and Constitutional Theory: Does It Really Taste that Much Better?" (1994). Constitutional Commentary. 751. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/751 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW RAWLS AND CONSTITUTIONAL THEORY: DOES IT REALLY TASTE THAT MUCH BETTER? Michael P. Zuckert* It used to be a major enterprise of philosophers to compete for the most striking way to describe the human differentia. Surely the most famous and long-lasting such effort was Aris­ totle's "the human being is the rational animal," but there have been other formulae of note put forward too: Plato's "the human being is the featherless biped" is memorable in its own way, as well as the definition I associate with Cicero, that the human be­ ing is the "beast with red cheeks," i.e., the only being that blushes, or has shame. Let me propose a new entry into the "human being is" ... sweepstakes: "the human being is the anni­ versary celebrating animal." So far as I know, the zoologists have discovered no other animal which shares this peculiar pro­ pensity with us, as, for example, the beaver and the bee share our technological proclivities.
    [Show full text]