Paper One - The Nature of Law (Subject to Revision)

Due: Oct. 5

Paper Description
The first paper you will be writing must focus on one of the specific theories of the nature of law we are examining - natural law, legal positivism, or legal realism - and one of the versions of this theory presented by one of the authors we have discussed - Aquinas, Austin, Holmes, Frank, Hart, or Dworkin. Primarily this will be an explication paper in which you explain the basic points of this philosophical theory of the nature of law and clarify the unique points of the particular theorist you have elected to consider. Having presented the basic theory you will then need to present a criticism of the theory that someone holding a different theory of law would make. This will require explaining what the criticism is, what element/claim of the theory is being addressed by the criticism, and why this is a problem for the theory of the nature of law you initially presented. Having presenting this overview of the theory, you will then need to explain how the theorist you have elected to examine would view the opinion(s) in the the cases Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

To clarify the requirements, the following list identifies the elements that need to be included in your paper:

1. The main points of the theory of the nature of law
1. list the general points of this theory in terms of what law is
2. explanation of these points
2. The unique points of the of the theoriest who advocates the theory of law
   1. identify the unique points of the theory as presented by the philosopher you are working with
   2. explain the unique points of the philosopher examined
3. Criticism of the theory
1. state the criticism
2. identify the point of the first theory that is being criticized and explain why this is a problem for this theory
4. The decisions and opinions of the cases
1. briefly summarize facts and opinions of the cases
2. explain how the theoriest would explain why the opinions were made according to the theory on the nature of law you have been discussing

A couple of things you should keep in mind. What I grade on is accuracy, completeness, and clarity. The claims you make in your paper must be accurate and documented. In terms of completeness, I look not only at whether you have explained the main points, but I also examine whether you have clarified the basic ideas contained in these main points. One way to do this is to provide examples (yours, mine, or the author's - documented of course) that will let me know that you understand what you are writing about. This leads to clarity. You have to be able to present these ideas so that any reasonably intelligent and interested person could pick up your paper and read it and have a basic understanding of the ideas. For you to achieve this level of clarity will likely require several drafts of your paper and possibly outside research.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

Rubric (0-4 point scale)

Each of the eight items will be assessed on the following 5 point scale. Items 1b. and 2b. will be wieghted to count twice as much as the other items (a total of 40 points possible). Grades will be determined by dividing the total number earned by 10

Philosophy of Law Page

Back to Schedule

Back to Syllabus

Back to Main Page