Ambiguity (pixsky) wrote in thequestionclub,

So, I'm drinking lots of tea and planning a late night of legal-philosophical research, when I come across possibly the most horrendous run-on sentence I've seen in ages:

"Dworkin's anti-sceptical argument is essentially that the properties of the sceptic's claim are analogous to those of substantive moral claims, that is, in asserting that the truth or falsity of 'legal-moral' dilemmas cannot be determined, the sceptic makes not a metaphysical claim about the way things are, but a moral claim to the effect that it is, in the face of epistemic uncertainty, unjust to determine legal-moral issues to the detriment of any given individual."

I've been doing a little bit of study on this guy and I'm still not entirely sure what this one means. Care to translate?

What, if anything, makes you want to throw a textbook across the room?

and, on an entirely unrelated note, what've you eaten today?
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded