Abstract

Dworkin consistently insists that his legal theory is the same kind of theory as legal positivism, as a matter of logic, a rival to positivism, and a better justified theory than positivism. In this chapter, Utilizing Frank Jackson’s distinction between modest and immodest approaches to conceptual analysis, I explain that Dworkin deploys ICA, while positivism deploys MCA. I argue that by dint of this difference in approach, pace Dworkin,,, and are false. A key premise in my argument is that ICA, unlike MCA, can result in an error theory of law. Hence, Dworkin’s theory implies an error theory of law. Yet, as I argue, he has failed to meet the justificatory burden an error theory must meet.