UCL Discovery

Abstract

This article criticises Scott Shapiro’s Legality (Harvard U.P. 2011) and is offered as a contribution to a published panel discussion of that book. Shapiro sees moral value in supposing that law is a gigantic and complex plan (GLOP = ‘General Logic of Planning) because law thus seen promotes ‘settling moral disputes’ and thereby avoids trusting judges with philosophical and moral questions beyond their ability. Guest argues that Shapiro’s argument is morally evaluative and so Shapiro is not the descriptive positivist he claims to be. Guest also argues that law as planning cannot make sense either of important areas of law such as criminal defences or adequately account for the value of the abstract and moral judgements judges have to make.