Hey, this is the partially examined life episode 304, part two.

We've been talking about Ronald Dworkins, the model of rules.

We're going to bring in Scott Shapiro's, a hard-dorking debate, a short guide for the

complex, and we brought in some other things as needed.

Which gears to explicitly talk about the stuff that was in Shapiro's account of this,

we've kind of given the first stage of the debate, but Shapiro at least summarizes for us

what we did not read in detail.

Yeah, I think I can get us into this in a good way.

He's going to be summarizing this Dworkin paper that we just read to some extent, and

so we don't need to go through all of that.

But I will say that he kind of gives a nice structure to all of this in his summary.

He calls this model of the rules one, this particular paper, and says that it gives

three characterizations of heart's positivism.

One is this pedigree thesis.

Law can be identified by tests that are based on, not on content, but on pedigree and social

facts, right?

Rules of recognition.

There's the discretion thesis, which we've discussed quite a bit, when they're not valid

rules that clearly cover a case, judges look beyond the law, and then there's what he

calls the obligation thesis, which that legal obligation necessarily involves falling

under a valid legal rule.

Then the question is how Dworkin criticizes all of these thesis, and he starts with the

...