to be completely credible in her sometimes audacious statements about equality‚ the nature of men‚ and sexism‚ Andrea Dworkin herself comes out as a victim of rape. While that was guaranteed to be a touchy subject it definitely gave her the power to affect an audience of 500 men and maintained a level of Ethos in her argument. When bringing up instances about rape and abuse‚ Dworkin by no means sugar-coats anything. She is biased. She is harsh in her use of language. And quite honestly she does a
Premium Rhetoric Emotion
MacKinnon ’s that it promotes the inequality in the sexes by discriminating women showing them as subordinates of men. MacKinnon wants to see pornography banned in order to help women ’s position in the social spheres of society. Her opponent is Ronald Dworkin who stands for negative liberty in all its forms‚ believes that the banning of pornography is not the answer to help women ’s status. Censorship to him is an infringement on one ’s freedom and he does not advocate any sort of chains on freedom in
Premium Freedom of speech Censorship First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Examination of Mill and Dworkin Looking at the legal status of drugs‚ and one’s own liberty for that matter‚ I examined the works of Mills and Dworkin. There are many different views‚ and in the end‚ as in all philosophical issues‚ there is no one answer. It then boils down to which one‚ if either‚ of these two different points of view is correct. Each of the works is presented in the book Contemporary Moral Problems by James White. After careful examination of both views‚ I will discuss each and
Premium John Stuart Mill On Liberty Freedom of speech
Mill - Dworkin debate 1. Mill’s utilitarian argument against paternalism "I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense‚ grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being". Mill does not argue that liberty is a right but rather that giving people liberty has beneficial consequences. Mill thinks
Premium Argument John Stuart Mill Liberty
Compare and contrast positivist and interpretive perspectives underpinning social research- This essay intends to investigate by comparing and contrasting positivist and interpretive perspectives that surround social research. It will look into the use of methods such as quantitative and qualitative research and the effects and outcomes that this has in relation to social research. This will include the variations amongst them in both a positive and negative light. Before research can be undertaken
Premium Quantitative research Scientific method Sociology
much-esteemed Ronald Dworkin. Part I – Adjudication of Hard Cases In his well-regarded works entitled “Taking Rights Seriously” and “A Matter of Principle‚” Dworkin provides an outstanding account of how judges should adjudicate hard cases. In presenting this account‚ he examines the discretion thesis. This thesis serves as the mechanism by which members of the judiciary should decide the most difficult of cases by establishing new law in the exercise of discretion. Dworkin assesses this thesis
Premium Law Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin
societies‚ which propagate individualism and freedom of choice more than societies before. Other schools of thought‚ namely structuralism‚ disagree and challenge this view by stating that their own theories are still significant and criticising interpretivism. The interpretivist theory takes a contrasting stance to structuralists on looking at society. Interpretive or social action perspectives examine smaller groups within society and unlike structuralism‚ are concerned with the subjective states
Premium Sociology
SCC 6 Available online: CanLII: (16) Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers‚ [2001] 1 S.C.R. 772‚ 2001 SCC 31 Available online: CanLII: (17) Dworkin‚ Ronald. 1982. “Law as Interpretation”. Critical Inquiry‚ Volume 9‚ Number 1‚ The Politics of Interpretation (September 1982)‚ pages 179-200. (18) Dworkin‚ Ronald. 1985. “Law ’s Ambitions for Itself”. Virginia Law Review‚ Volume 71‚ Number 2 (March 1985)‚ pages 173-187. AND Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms‚ Part I of
Premium Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin Law
single fundamental test for law forces us to miss the important standards that are rules.” explains Dworkin on his attack on positivism. It is argued‚ by Dworkin‚ that both legal positivism and natural law theories are in reality searching for an answer to the question ‘what is law?’ a fundamental question and challenge towards the debate and critique of the natural lawyer and positivist. However Dworkin directs towards another issue‚ a more specific question of understanding law‚ gained by asking
Premium Jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin Natural law
thinking that had long been considered dead and buried. Perhaps most notoriously‚ Dworkin combated the positivist theory of his former teacher and predecessor as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University‚ H.L.A. Hart. When comparing the two‚ it is apparent that Dworkin and Hart disagree on a plethora of issues‚ however there exist several disagreements that can be noted as fundamental. Since the work of Dworkin deals with the criticism of positivists such as Hart‚ to appreciate Dworkin’s arguments
Premium Jurisprudence Law Ronald Dworkin