| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 法律學研究所 === 103 === The thesis is devoted to evaluate Dworkin’s Semantic Sting Argument, which is designed to criticize the theories of legal positivism. Based on semantic sting, Dworkin claims that legal positivism in general is not a successful theory of law. Depart from the common literature concentrating on whether Dworkin has successfully debunked legal positivism by semantic sting, or on the contrary, legal positivists survive the attack, I would like to take a different approach to cope with the question. I will evaluate from another perspective whether Dworkin’s own theory, the interpretive jurisprudence, will also fail itself through the criticism of semantic sting, and invalidate the project of interpretive jurisprudence.
The answer towards the above-mentioned question in this thesis is positive. To show how semantic sting also influence the validity of interpretive jurisprudence, the thesis will demonstrate how semantics actually play an important role in the process of reason-giving in normative judgments, and semantics also influences the practice of interpretation. The thesis will not simply draw upon the traditional methods, arguments, and literature on the issue, it will also refer to empirical researches related the topic. The thesis will evaluate through the empirical researches how norms are constructed, and how humans confront norms. All in all, the thesis intends to point out how paradoxically human beings will be limited by semantics, yet can only accomplished normative judgments and practices through the limitation of semantics.
|
|---|
