Introduction
Ronald Dworkin revolutionized legal thought by rejecting the vision of dry regulations in favor of moral coherence. His theory of law as integrity posits that the legal system is not merely a collection of rules, but a living structure built upon fundamental values. In the Polish context—ranging from abortion disputes to state-church relations—Dworkin’s thought becomes a crucial tool for analyzing the legitimacy of power. This article explores why a judge must sometimes be a philosopher and how individual rights protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
"All-or-Nothing" Rules vs. Weighing Principles
The foundation of Dworkin’s theory is the distinction between rules and principles. Legal rules operate binarily: they are either applicable in full or not at all. An example is Article 148 of the Penal Code—if the criteria for murder are met, a sentence must be imposed. Legal principles function quite differently, acting like a compass that points the way. They do not "fail" when in conflict with other norms; instead, they possess a dimension of weight. In a specific case, one principle may yield to another without losing its place in the system.
In this view, individual rights function as trumps. This means they take precedence over general policy goals or social utility. If a citizen exercises their freedom of assembly, the state cannot ban it simply to improve traffic flow. A right-as-trump "beats" arguments of collective convenience, protecting fundamental human dignity. The process of choosing the correct norm relies on two criteria: fit (consistency with judicial history) and justification (identifying the best moral foundation for a given practice).
Judge Hercules Finds the One Right Answer
Dworkin challenged the legal positivism of H.L.A. Hart and Hans Kelsen. While Hart saw law as a system of rules based on social acceptance, and Kelsen viewed it as a sterile hierarchy of norms (the Grundnorm), Dworkin integrated morality into the very definition of law. He created the ideal interpreter in Judge Hercules—a mythical figure who, through superhuman intellect, finds the one right answer even in the most difficult cases. Hercules does not rely on discretion but reconstructs the system to present it in its best light.
Hercules’ method is constructive interpretation, which proceeds in three stages: pre-interpretive (identifying the legal material), interpretive (searching for moral meaning), and post-interpretive (reforming the practice in light of the discovered principles). This procedure ensures law as integrity and eliminates so-called "checkerboard" solutions—situations where the state applies contradictory standards to similar citizens, undermining trust in the legal order.
Abortion and State-Church Relations as "Hard Cases"
In the Polish reality, Dworkin’s concepts help us understand so-called hard cases. The abortion dispute is a classic conflict of principles: the protection of life versus the autonomy and dignity of women. According to Dworkin, a judge cannot stop at the literal wording of regulations but must weigh these values, striving for the coherence of the entire system. Similarly, in state-church relations: integrity requires that the principle of religious equality not be sacrificed for temporary political interests or the privileges of a single community.
Crucial here is the distinction between the formal validity of a norm and its force of law. A regulation may exist in the code, but if it flagrantly violates the principles of equal concern and respect, it loses its moral legitimacy to be enforced. This idea, supported by the concepts of Lon Fuller (the internal morality of law) and John Rawls (justice as fairness), reminds us that the judge's role in balancing conflicting constitutional principles is the foundation of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
Summary
Law in its most sublime form is neither a dry record nor a tool for political struggle, but a continuous search for justice. It requires not only intellect but also a deep sense of moral responsibility for the system's coherence. In a world where rules seem to give way to interests, does law as integrity still have a chance to serve as a compass for judges? Or are we destined for an endless dance between the letter of the law and its spirit?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF