ABSTRACT
Dancy’s theory of unprincipled ethics has been largely ignored in jurisprudence, partly because of the apparent contradiction inherent in the concept of a law without rules. However, this model corresponds closely to legal practice in cases where the law is unclear or where there are no directly applicable rules to follow. In cases of impossible attempts, for many years there were no clear legal rules at all. The fact that recent efforts to clarify the applicable law have been unsuccessful corroborates the idea that the particularist approach may be more generally applicable. It may be relevant in all cases where there is room for disagreement. However, there are important differences between the problems raised in legal interpretation and in ethics.
