I am quite confused on a topic we discussed in our law philosophy class today. I was absent for a week due to sickness and the professor wouldn't take the time to explain, I am hoping someone here can help me out. here is a imaginary case he has told us to think about in class using Dworkin's philosophical views on naturalism and conventionalism: You are the city court judge, and two men are brought before you for violating an ordinance in your city which says "it shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of fifty dollars, to sleep in any railway station." Men #1 had been heard snoring by the arresting officer while sitting upright on a bench in the railway station's waiting room at 3 am. When awakened, he produced a ticket for a train that ha been delayed. Men #2 had stretched out on a bench in the waiting room, pulled a blanket around himself, and closed his eyes, but was arrested before he had a chance to fall asleep. Although homeless, he had a driver's license with a local address on it. Can someone help explain me how would they you decide the case by using judicial philosophical theories of Dworkin's conventionalism and naturalism?
Hi, I'm a Moderator for this topic. I've been working hard to find a Professional to assist you right away, but sometimes finding the right Professional can take a little longer than expected.
I wonder whether you're ok with continuing to wait for an answer. If you are, please let me know and I will continue my search. If not, feel free to let me know and I will cancel this question for you. Thank you!
I dont know when will I be able to get an answer?
Seems like no professionals are able to help me out over here. Can I cancel my question?
I do need information on Dworkin's ideas about conventionalism. I already figured out the naturalism party by rereading through his articles. Yet I still lack information and understanding regarding conventionalism .
If you have info on that please do let me know.