I would like to understand the strengths and weaknesses of HLA Hart's approach to methodology in Legal Theory. How does Semantic Sting relate to it?

Might this be homework or just a question that came up over breakfast?

I would have to say homework.

I would have to say homework.



Then I have to say we don't do homework. If you post YOUR research and conclusions someone will come along to discuss it with you.

OK... Hart say s that he is not trying to define the word 'law' and therefore Dworkin's semantic sting argument is useless against him. Hart claims he is only trying to highlight the salient features of a modern legal system. But I think this is just bait and switch. Lets look at the words 'highlight' and 'define'. To define something is to draw contours between something and that which surrounds it. To highlight is to simply use lighting or pigment to do the same thing. So if we are using words to HIGHLIGHT the features of a modern legal system... are we not still stung by semantic? Will we not always potentially be just by virtue of the fact we communicate with words?

With respect, this isn't your answer. This is a question to a question and something you pulled off the Internet.

This is most definitely not a college/law school question and acceptable answer.

Actually, I am in complete compliance with Terms of Service Part 1 subsections 6 and 7. The question is still pending: Is Hart suceptible to the Semantic Sting argument? If you have something constructive to post, then please do. But if not, then let someone else.

I will be real constructive to someone who wants others to do their homework, post closed.

With a attitude like yours clark, if this is real law school you are in serious trouble