Abstract

Irreverence for law, Lyons says in his preface, is the dominant theme of this collection of ten essays. This irreverence is distinct from the virtually commonplace critical attitude of those who agree that law is fallible. Lyons's irreverence goes deeper. When he reflects on the sad history of legal systems, especially those in which law has been the instrument of genocide, chattel slavery, and other forms of injustice and inhumanity, he finds it difficult to be as complacent as, he argues, most other legal theorists--positivists, natural lawyers, and even Ronald Dworkin--seem to be. What legal theorists tend by and large to overlook, Lyons believes, is the basic truth that "someone whose conduct is regulated by a system of law has a right to be treated by the government in a morally defensible way". It is possible, Lyons argues, that a judicial decision be justified in every other relevant way yet still be morally indefensible. This is arguably what occurred in Dred Scott vs. Sandford. What is more, Lyons continues, it seems true that any legal system as such may be properly held to this standard. This follows not from a controversial claim concerning what law ought to be, but, as Lyons sees it, from a clear understanding of what law is.