Archiwum Filozofii Prawai Filozofii Społecznej

Journal of the Polish Section of IVR (ISSN:2082-3304)

IVRwww.ivr.org.pl
  • About us
  • Aim & scope
  • News
  • Issues
    • Current issue
    • Past Issues
    • Thematic Collections
  • Editorial board
    • Board Members
    • Reviewers
  • For authors
  • Ethics
  • Contact
  • Polski

Fish – Dworkin debate as an example of dispute about practice of interpretation of law

Opublikowano: 2016-09-28
Issues>Number 2(11)/2015>Research article
Michał PełkaDOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2015.2.86

Article tools

Full-text PDFNumber 2(11)/2015Polish version
Language: EnglishPublished: Number 2(11)/2015, pp. 86-105.Number of downloads: 637

In this issue

Back to issue table of contents
← Previous text„L’amie de la liberté”: Benjamin Constant’s considerations about freedomSabina KruszyńskaNext text →Kant, Korsgaard and the Moral Status of AnimalsTomasz Pietrzykowski

Other texts by this author

  • David DeGrazia on Animal Rights: A Critical Analysis
  • Metaphysical realism in the face of challenges from contextualism and nonfactualism – considerations against the background of Michael Moore’s natural law theory

Dr Michał Pełka

University of Warsaw

Keywords: legal interpretation, meaning, Stanley Fish, Ronald Dworkin, Ludwig Wittgenstein


English abstract:
The aim of the article is to critically asses the theories of interpretation developed by two prominent philosophers, namely Stanley Fish and Ronald Dworkin. After first describing and reconstructing their ideas the paper then identifies problems concerning the stance according to which everything in applying law depends on interpretation. The critic is based on the Ludwig’s Wittgenstein remark that there must be grasping the rule (or more broadly a meaning of any word) which is not interpretation, otherwise we end up in regressus ad infinitum fallacy. Paper’s main claim is that although the theory of R. Dworkin is not fully free from defects it has nevertheless more explanation power than the opponent’s propositions.

Cite this articleAPA, Chicago, OSCOLA, BibTeX, RIS

M. Pełka (2015) Fish – Dworkin debate as an example of dispute about practice of interpretation of law. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 2015, no. 2(11), 86-105. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2015.2.86.

License: CC BY 4.0DOIHTMLPDFIssueBibTeXRISJATS XMLMichał Pełkalegal interpretationmeaningStanley FishRonald DworkinLudwig Wittgenstein Language: Polish

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: legal interpretation, Ludwig Wittgenstein, meaning, Michał Pełka, Ronald Dworkin, Stanley Fish

Submit article

Contact

archiwum@ivr.org.pl

Editorial secretary: dr Karolina Gmerek (karolina.gmerek@usz.edu.pl)

See guidelines for authors

fFacebook

Current issue

Cover of AFPiFS issue 2(47)/2026
Issue 2(47)/2026

Indexing

  • 100 pts.on the Polish ministerial journal list
  • ScopusScopus
  • ERIH PLUSERIH PLUS
  • DOAJDOAJ
  • Crossref DOICrossref DOI

ISSN: 2082-3304

Journal metadata and indexing services.

Standards and presence
Journal developmentJournal developmentOpen AccessCC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0

Most searched articles

  1. Agonizm polityczny a myślenie o prawie i prawoznawstwieAuthors: Jerzy Leszczyński
  2. Zasada nullum crimen sine lege jako źródło poszukiwania językowej granicy wykładni prawa karnego?Authors: Sławomir Tkacz
  3. Superfluum and surpluses of meaning as examples of redundancy of the text of lawAuthors: Maciej Kłodawski
  4. Pewność prawa a zasada interpretatio retro non agitAuthors: Agnieszka Bielska-Brodziak; Marek Suska
  5. Hans Kelsen as Outliner: The Defence of a Radical Norm TheoryAuthors: Stanley L. Paulson
  6. Cztery zagadki o rządach prawa:Dlaczego? Co? Gdzie? I kogo to obchodzi? Część IIAuthors: Martin Krygier
  7. Kant, Korsgaard i podmiotowość moralna zwierzątAuthors: Tomasz Pietrzykowski
  8. Robert Alexy’s Theory of Legal PrinciplesAuthors: Milena Korycka
  9. Why Legal Conventionalism FailsAuthors: Adam Dyrda
  10. Paweł Włodkowic i jego zapomniana koncepcja wojny sprawiedliwejAuthors: Tomasz Tulejski

Based on Google Search Console data.

Szukaj

Categories

  • Articles
  • Bez kategorii
  • Editorial
  • In Memoriam
  • News
  • Reports
  • Reviews and discussions
Journal infrastructureISSN 2082-3304Open accessCC BY 4.0Crossref DOIDOAJ

Copyright © 2026 Polska Sekcja Międzynarodowego Stowarzyszenia Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej IVR | Administrator strony: Karolina Gmerek

Ta strona używa plików cookies. Zakładamy, że wyrażają Państwo na to zgodę, ale mogą Państwo także wyłączyć pliki cookies w Ustawieniach. //
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. (Zob. więcej // Read more) Ustawienia // SettingsZGODA // ACCEPT

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT