Advertisement

Dworkin’s “Semantic Sting” and Behavioral Pragmatics

  • Brian E. ButlerEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 18)

Abstract

Ronald Dworkin in Law’s Empire famously utilized what he described as the “semantic sting” to explain both why the concept of “law” is an essentially contestable concept and because of this why the concept of law is also essentially interpretive. Ultimately Dworkin’s theory makes law and legal practice on all levels turn on, in his terms, an essentially semantic dispute over what the best conception of law is. That is, law is in all its worldly glory ultimately an interpretive concept based upon a conception of meaning centered upon semantics. I argue that law is better analyzed as a set of embodied and socially embedded practices and that emphasis upon the interpretive or “semantic” aspects of law crowds out the more important behavioral and concrete aspects of legal practice. The claim in this chapter is simply that even the most sophisticated conceptual or semantic analysis of law in terms of a core set of concepts is indefensibly reductionist. If semantic theories of law have a tendency to crowd out the recognition of practices, of embodied social ways of life, then the real “semantic sting” is in accepting the semantic move, and not in any disagreement over how semantic content is to be identified.

Keywords

semantic sting behavioral pragmatics Ronald Dworkin legal interpretation semantic content 

References

  1. Burke, F. T. (2014). Extended mind and representation. In J. R. Shook & T. Solymosi (Eds.), Pragmatist neurophilosophy (pp. 177–202). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  2. Capone, A., & Mey, J. L. (2016). Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Capone, A., & Poggi, F. (Eds.). (2016). Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Charnock, R. (2016). Legal positivism and the pragmatics of meaning and morality. In A. Capone & F. Poggi (Eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 159–184). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chemero, A. (2011). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Colemanm, J. L. (2001). The practice of principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. The Philosophical Review, 3, 357–370.Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin, R. (1988). Law’s Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, R. (2006). Justice in robes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Jori, M. (2016). Legal pragmatics. In A. Capone & F. Poggi (Eds.), Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 33–60). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mead, G. H. (1964). Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Morris, C. (1946a). Signs, language and behavior. New York: Prentice Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morris, C. (1946b). Letter to editors. The Journal of Philosophy, 43, 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morris, C. (1955). Foundations of the theory of signs. In R. Carnap, C. Morris, & O. Neurath (Eds.), Foundations of the unity of science: Toward an international encyclopedia of unified science (pp. 77–137). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Morris, C. (1964). Signification and significance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nöe, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your Brian, and other lessens from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  17. Peirce, C. S. (1992). The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Pryba, R. (2014). Dewey, naturalism, and neuroaesthetics. In J. R. Shook & T. Solymosi (Eds.), Pragmatist neurophilosophy (pp. 51–79). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  19. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word & Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rohrer, T. (2014). How inquiry and method shape brain science: Pragmatism, embodiment, and cognitive neuroscience. In J. R. Shook & T. Solymosi (Eds.), Pragmatist neurophilosophy (pp. 153–176). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  21. Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2014). The legacy of William James: Lessons for today’s twenty-first century neoroscience. In J. R. Shook & T. Solymosi (Eds.), Pragmatist neurophilosophy (pp. 29–49). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  22. Shook, J. R., & Solymosi, T. (2014). Pragmatist Neurophilosophy (pp. 177–202). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  23. Uebel, T. (2013). Pragmatics in Carnap and Morris and the bipartide metatheory conception. Erkenn, 78, 523–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Howerton Distinguished Professor of Humanities, Department of PhilosophyUNC AshevilleAshevilleUSA

Personalised recommendations