GENUINE DISAGREEMENT IN THE CONCEPT OF JUSTICE: A DEBATE BETWEEN KELSEN AND DWORKINABSTRACT
This paper aims to show that positivism and post-positivism’s philosophical and political bases, although distinct, have significant similarities. We’ll identify such similarities from the bibliographic review of two important works for this debate: “Pure Theory of Law” by Hans Kelsen and “Justice for Hedgehogs” by Ronald Dworkin. From the clarification of theoretical similarities of these two pieces our specific objective will be subdivided into establish the genuine agreements and disagreements of these two currents of thought in relation to the concept of justice. That allows to affirm as true the hypothesis that judgmental values are always moral, and that there is an objective moral value that determines, conditions, and justifies them. This will result in the notion that the divergence between Kelsenian positivism and Dworkinian post-positivism is based on metaphysics and is, in fact, a genuine disagreement.
Keywords: Kelsen; Dworkin; Justice; Genuine disagreement; Logical positivism