A Study Of Dworkin’s Thought Of The Unity Of Value

Legal practice has its value points.On the one hand,the value points make legal practice attractive and therefore people have the obligation to abide by the law.On the other hand,they also dominate the interpretation of the law.The truth of legal claims is closely related to the issue of value.Dworkin used his criticism toward external moral skepticism to demonstrate that moral claims and even value claims can be true.The value proposition is true based on the support of other value propositions,this is Dworkin’s answer to how the value proposition is true,which is the core of the unity of value.The unity of value is the epistemology of value,the theory about what is reliable knowledge in the field of value.Before dealing with the unity of value,however,a pre-existing question must be resolved,that is,whether it is possible to have reliable knowledge in the field of value.The skepticism of value knowledge has always existed in the minds of some people and some scholars.But if you think about it carefully,you will find that there is no solid reason for the skepticism of value knowledge.For its reasons cannot be purely factual,which would violate Hume’s principle.But its reaspm cannot contain an element of value either,as this would lead to self-contradiction.The argument for the unity of value starts from Hume’s principle,which means that the truth of a certain value can only be obtained by relying on the truth of other values.True can be understood as the best,and a value,if it is supported by all relevant value propositions,it is the best.So,a value proposition is true when it forms a mutually supportive and coherent relationship with all related value propositions.The "mutually supportive and mutually consistent relationship" here is the unity relationship.The problem of scope is the first confusion that arises when applying the unity of value.The unity of value intends to make the chain of value argumentation spread over the entire value domain,but is it possible that this chain of argumentation exists only in a certain domain? Political liberalism argues that political values only need to appeal to other political values and do not need the support of values in other ethical and moral fields.But the core reason for political liberalism,the rational pluralism,has its own flaws.We do not have a base point from which to evaluate various incompatible ethical and moral concepts,claiming that they are all rational.What Phoenix calls self-evident value is another value epistemological solution derived from Hume’s principle.Hume’s principle means that the epistemology of values cannot rely on the epistemology of science.It does not violate Hume’s principle if it is believed that there are some self-evident values,and then these self-evident values are used as the basis to construct a value system.However,there is a problem toward understanding "self-evident" here.This article will argue that,if self-evident is understood in an appropriate way,a value system based on self-evidence would be analogous to the unity of value."Incommensurability" is seen by some scholars as a hindrance to the unity of value,but this challenge is largely resolved by Dworkin’s distinction between "uncertainty" and "indeterminate".Moreover,Dworkin attempts to use the concept of dignity to connect the fields of ethics and morality.This article attempts to connect the two fields of ethics and beauty with a heroic outlook on life of "the courage to face the truth".These attempts show us the possibility of the unity of value.Contemporary Chinese legal circles may raise some kind of challenge to the unity of value,the starting point of which is to look at judicial practice from a causal perspective.From the perspective of causality,the results of judicial decisions are only made by judges based on certain motives,but they are not making a legally correct answer.If this perspective is the only perspective on judicial adjudication,then judicial adjudication does not require normative truth,and therefore does not require value truth,and thus does not require the unity of value.However,a causal perspective cannot replace a normative perspective.From a normative perspective,judicial adjudication is still the process of making adjudication based on legal reasons.As the epistemology of value,the unity of value has the ability to deal with the problem of value.The unity of value requires us to think broadly about the interconnectedness of the various fields of value,which can give us important clues to solve the problem of value.By finding an ethical basis for the morality of lies,we can explain the moral confusion of lies.By drawing an analogy between law and art,we can address the "conceptual redundancy" conundrum of the substantive rule of law.The simplest and most common way to apply the unity of value is to apply an abstract concept of value to a specific problem.If we apply Dworkin’s conception of dignity to the issue of gene editing,we will know the boundaries that dignity draws for gene editing activities.