Quizzes 1 & 2 (80 points)

Each Quiz is worth a possible total of 10 points per category, times 4 categories equals 40 points times 2 Quizzes.

Study Guide Quiz 1

  1. Unit 1: Introduction & Fuller – “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” (Jan 13–15) Core thesis: Extreme hypothetical reveals deep divides in legal reasoning; no single “correct” answer—law blends rules, morality, consequences, and interpretation. Key contrasting judges (organize essays around these four views): True judge (positivist/formalist): strict letter of statute. Natural-law judge: unjust “law” is no law. Utilitarian judge: greatest happiness / least suffering. Interpretive judge: purpose and spirit of law. High-level takeaway: Law is not mechanical; judges inevitably import philosophy.
  2. Unit 2: Natural Law Tradition – Kretzmann, “Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex” (Jan 20–23) Core thesis: Unjust law is not truly law (Aquinas-derived: law must be ordered to common good, promulgated, etc.). Key concepts: Validity vs. obligatoriness; “no law” vs. “bad law” distinction. Comparison anchor: Direct foil to positivism (Bentham/Hart: a valid law can still be unjust and still bind).
  3. Unit 3: Utilitarian Positivism – Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation (Jan 25–30) Core thesis: Law’s purpose = maximize utility (pleasure – pain); legislation as social engineering. Key concepts: Principle of utility, hedonic calculus, sovereign commands, separation of law-as-it-is from law-as-it-ought-to-be. Bridge to next: Bentham = classical positivist foundation for Hart.
  4. Unit 4: Modern Positivism – Hart, “Law as the Union of Primary and Secondary Rules” (Feb 1–6) Core thesis: Law = system of rules, not commands (rejects Austin/Bentham sovereign model). Primary rules: dutyimposing (what citizens must do). Secondary rules: power-conferring (rule of recognition, rule of change, rule of adjudication). Key test: Rule of recognition (what officials accept as valid law). Strengths: Explains legal systems in modern states; internal point of view. Classic comparison: Hart vs. Dworkin (rules vs. principles).
  5. Unit 5: Dworkin’s Interpretivism (Feb 8–13) Lectures 🖨️Print / Save as PDF Philosophy of Law > 12 Lectures  2/24/26, 5:25 PM Teaching-portfolio - Lectures localhost:4338/data/course.phil.law/course-lecture-notes/index.html 1/37 Readings: “The Model of Rules” + “Integrity in Law”. Core theses: Rules alone insufficient; law includes principles (weighted, not all-or-nothing). Law as integrity: best constructive interpretation that fits past decisions and justifies them in moral light (“law as a chain novel”). Key critique of Hart: “semantic sting” – positivists wrong about criteria of legality. Essay-ready contrast table (memorize structure):AspectHart (Positivism)Dworkin (Interpretivism)Nature of lawRules + social factPrinciples + moral fitJudicial roleApply valid rulesInterpret for integrityLaw-moralitySeparableInseparable in hard cases
  6. Unit 6: Legal Realism – Holmes & Frank (Feb 17? per schedule alignment) Holmes, “The Path of the Law”: Law = prediction of what courts will do (“bad man” view). Focus on consequences, not logic or morality. Frank, “Legal Realism”: Rule skepticism + fact skepticism; judges decide first, rationalize later; law is uncertain and human. High-level role: Bridge from positivism to CLS; law is not a closed system of rules.
  7. Unit 7: Critical Legal Studies (CLS) (Feb 20 per syllabus.html) Core thesis: Law is politics/indeterminacy masked as neutral; serves dominant power structures (race, class, gender). Key moves: Trashing (indeterminacy of doctrine), deconstruction, alternative narratives. Relation to prior units: Radical extension of Realism + Marxist/feminist critique of Hart/Dworkin “liberal” assumptions.
  8. Unit 8: Plato, Crito (Feb 22–27 – likely on Quiz) Core thesis: Socrates must obey Athens’ laws (social contract, gratitude, consistency arguments). Key arguments: Personified Laws speech; harm to the city; better to suffer injustice than commit it. Essay hook: Does Crito support natural-law obligation or positivist duty to obey any law? Link to Kretzmann (“unjust law”) and CLS (law as power).