VPatz.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Hey guys, I'm studying Jurisprudence as one of my modules and I am trying to formulate a response to the question:


Is it possible to properly understand law without understanding what good law is?

At first I thought it involved talking about Hart-Dworkin debate on separability between law and morals - is this correct?
For example, Nazi laws (as discussed by Hart, Shapiro etc)

But what else can I discuss that is relevant to this question?
Perhaps, Hart's rule of recognition?
And legal obligation?

Also, would Fuller's 8 principles of legality in the 'Internal Morality of law' be relevant here - for the 'good law' part?

Overall, I'm not sure of the argument to shape my essay through evaluation of the statement. Is it too simplistic of a statement to say that understanding law and not understanding what good law is to be separate??

I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone has
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

If you don't put your camera on in online lessons, why is that?

My teacher doesn't want us to (41)
18.22%
No one else does (73)
32.44%
I'm embarrassed about my background (23)
10.22%
I feel self-conscious showing my face (76)
33.78%
We don't use a video platform (3)
1.33%
I don't have a camera (4)
1.78%
Something else (tell us in the thread) (5)
2.22%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise