Response

Boston University Law Review

Volumn 90, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 1059-1087

  Dworkin, Ronald ^a,b,c  

^a Dept of Philosophy ^*  (United States)

^b NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954323335     PISSN: 00068047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Note

References (67)

1. RONALD DWORHN, JUSTICE FOR HEDGEHOGS (forthcoming 2010) (Apr. 17, 2009 manuscript on file with the Boston University Law Review).
2. Russ Shafer-Landau, The Possibility of Metaethics, 90 B.U. L. REV. 479, 480-81 (2010).
3. Id. at 481.
4. Daniel Star, Moral Skepticism for Foxes, 90 B.U. L. REV. 497,499 (2010).
5. See, e.g., Betrand Russell, On Denoting, 14 MlND 479,485 (1905) ("Either 'the present King of France is bald' or 'the present King of France is not bald' must be true. Yet if we enumerated the things that are bald, and then the things that are not bald, we should not find the present King of France in either list. Hegelians, who love a synthesis, will probably conclude that he wears a wig.").
6. Michael Smith, Dworkin on External Skepticism, 90 B.U. L. REV. 509 (2010).
7. Id. at 518 (footnote omitted).
8. James Dreier, Meta-Ethics and the Problem of Creeping Minimalism, 18 PHIL. PERSP. 23,41 (2004).
9. Id.
10. See also a related discussion in Kit Fine, The Question of Realism, in INDIVIDUALS, ESSENCE AND IDENTITY: THEMES OF ANALYTIC METAPHYSICS 3 (Andrea Bottani et al. eds., 2002).
11. See, e.g., Fine, supra note 9.
12. Aaron Garrett, A Historian's Comment on the Metaethics Panel at Justice for Hedgehogs: A Conference on Ronald Dworkin's Forthcoming Book, 90 B.U. L. REV. 521 (2010).
13. Benjamin C Zipursky, Two Takes on Truth in Normative Discourse, 90 B.U. L. REV. 525,528(2010).
14. Ronald Dworkin, Objectivity and Truth: You'd Better Believe It, 25 PHIL & PUB. AFF. 87 (1996).
15. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Is Moral Reasoning Conceptual Interpretation?, 90 B.U. L. REV. 535,539 (2010).
16. Lawrence B. Solum, The Unity of Interpretation, 90 B.U. L. REV. 551 (2010).
17. Lawrence Sager, Material Rights, Underenforcement, and the Adjudication Thesis, 90 B.U. L. REV. 579 (2010).
18. David Lyons, Moral Limits of Dworkin's Theory of Law and Legal Interpretation, 90 B.U. L. REV. 595 (2010).
19. T.M. Scanlon, Varieties of Responsibility, 90 B.U. L. REV. 603 (2010).
20. Robert Kane, Responsibility and Free Will in Dworkin's Justice for Hedgehogs, 90 B.U. L. REV. 611 (2010).
21. Anita Allen, Mental Disorders and the "System of Judicial Responsibility," 90 B.U. L. REV. 621(2010).
22. Christine Jolis, Dworkin's "Uving Well" and the Well-Being Revolution, 90 B.U. L. REV. 641 (2010).
23. Amartya Sen, Dworkin on Ethics and Freewill: Comments and Questions, 90 B.U. L. REV. 657,658-59 (2010).
24. Kwame Anthony Appiah, Dignity and Moral Duty, 90 B.U. L. REV. 661 (2010).
25. Id. at 670.
26. John CP. Goldberg, Uberal Responsibility: A Comment on Justice for Hedgehogs, 90 B.U. L. REV. 677 (2010).
27. See, e.g., Ronald Dworkin, Liberalism, in PUBUC AND PRIVATE MORALITY 113 (Stuart Hampshire ed., 1978), incorporated in RONALD DWORHN, A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE 181 (1985);
28. Ronald Dworkin, What Is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare, 10 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 185 (1981), incorporated in RONALD DWORKIN, SOVEREIGN VIRTUE 11 (2000);
29. Ronald Dworkin, What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources, 10 PHIL. & PUB. AFF. 283 (1981), incorporated in DWORHN, SOVEREIGN VIRTUE, supra, at 65.
30. F.M. Kamm, What Ethical Responsibility Cannot Justify: A Discussion of Ronald Dworkin's Justice for Hedgehogs, 90 B.U. L. REV. 691 (2010).
31. Kenneth W. Simons, Dworkin's Two Principles of Dignity: An Unsatisfactory Nonconsequentialist Account of Interpersonal Moral Duties, 90 B.U. L. REV. 715 (2010).
32. RONALD DWORKIN, LAW'S EMPIRE 301-12 (1986).
33. Susanne Sreedhar & Candice Delmas, State Legitimacy and Political Obligation in Justice for Hedgehogs: 77ie Radical Potential of Dworkinian Dignity, 90 B.U. L. REV. 737 (2010).
34. C. Edwin Baker, In Hedgehog Solidarity, 90 B.U. L. REV. 759 (2010).
35. Id. at 792.
36. RONALD DWORHN, IS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE HERE? 150 (2006) ("The selection of texts would be intensely controversial, and the danger of manipulation by local political and religious groups would be great indeed.").
37. For a frightening example, see Russell Shorto, How Christian Were the Founders?, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 11, 2010, MM32 (Magazine) (describing the Texas State Board of Education's process for amending its social-studies curriculum guidelines). "[Board member] Don McLeroy .. . proposed amendment after amendment on social issues to the document that teams of professional educators had drawn up over 12 months, in what would have to be described as a single-handed display of archconservative political strongarming."
38. Id.
39. Robin West, Rights, Harms, and Duties: A Response to Justice for Hedgehogs, 90 B.U. L. REV. 819 (2010).
40. James E. Fleming, Taking Responsibilities as Well as Rights Seriously, 90 B.U. L. REV. 839 (2010).
41. Hugh Baxter, Dworkin's "One-System" Conception of Law and Morality, 90 B.U. L. REV. 857,861 (2010).
42. Linda C. McClain, Justice and Elegance for Hedgehogs - In Life, Law, and Uterature, 90 B.U. L. REV. 863 (2010)
43. (comparing and contrasting MURIEL BARBERY, THE ELEGANCE OF THE HEDGEHOG (Alison Anderson trans., Europa Editions 2008) (2006) and
44. DWORHN, supra note 1).
45. Martha Minow & Joseph William Singer, In Favor of Foxes: Pluralism as Fact and Aid to the Pursuit of Justice, 90 B.U. L. REV. 903,906 (2010).
46. Samuel Freeman, Equality of Resources, Market Luck, and the Justification of Adjusted Market Distributions, 90 B.U. L. REV. 921 (2010).
47. Frank I. Michelman, Foxy Freedom?, 90 B.U. L. REV. 949 (2010).
48. San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1,17 (1973).
49. Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852 (1992) (joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ.).
50. Robert D. Sloane, Human Rights for Hedgehogs?: Global Value Pluralism, International Law, and Some Reservations of the Fox, 90 B.U. L. REV. 975 (2010).
51. See DWORHN, supra note 1 (manuscript at Chapter 5).
52. Sloane, jupra note 44, at 976 (quoting
53. DWORHN, supra note 1 (manuscript at 129)).
54. See my discussion of the role of religion in human rights literature in Chapter 15 of Justice for Hedgehogs.
55. DWORKIN, supra note 1 (manuscript at Chapter 4).
56. Id. (manuscript at Chapter 9).
57. Id. (manuscript at Chapter 4).
58. Robert G. Bone, Procedure, Participation, Rights, 90 B.U. L. REV. 1011 (2010).
59. RONALD DWORHN, Principle, Policy, Procedure, in A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE 72 (1985).
60. Stephen Macedo, Against Majoritarianism: Democratic Values and Institutional Design, 90 B.U. L. REV. 1029 (2010).
61. Jeremy Waldron, A Majority in the Ufeboat, 90 B.U. L. REV. 1043 (2010).
62. Id. at 1049.
63. DWORHN, jupra note 1 (manuscript at Chapter 15).
64. "[T]he fairness/equality defense of the majority-decision rule ["MD"] is well known," Waldron declares. Jeremy Waldron, The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, 115 YALE LJ. 1346,1388 (2006). He elaborates: Better than any other rule, MD is neutral as between the contested outcomes, treats participants equally, and gives each expressed opinion the greatest weight possible compatible with giving equal weight to all opinions. When we disagree about the desired outcome, when we do not want to bias the matter up-front one way or another, and when each of the relevant participants has a moral claim to be treated as an equal in the process, then MD - or something like it - is the principle to use.
65. Id.
66. See generally RONALD DWORHN, TAHNG RIGHTS SERIOUSLY (1977).
67. Id. at 234-38.