ABSTRACT

In the previous two chapters, we saw that a legal theory’s goal is relative to its explanatory ambitions. We also saw that it can be unwise to characterize a legal theory’s aims in terms of the false dichotomy of descriptive/normative jurisprudence. Between the extremes of Perry’s caricature of methodological positivism and Dworkinian interpretivism is the route of descriptive-explanatory positivist legal theory, a type of legal theory which does not engage in substantive moral-political argument, nor aim to predict anything, nor depend on a radically empirical methodology.