Moral Objetivism and Law. Arguments for a Debate with Manuel Atienza

Abstract

This article begins a debate about law and moral objectivism. The controversy arises from Juan Antonio García Amado’s comment to Manuel Atienza’s article entitled «Moral Objectivism and Law». García Amado criticizes that Atienza, following Dworkin, considers that the correct answer exists for judicial cases because the judges claim that answer is correct. García Amado argues that a claim does not demonstrate the reality of what is intended. He also questions Atienza’s thesis that judges have a moral duty to apply the law, adding that, even if it were, that would not give reason to iusmoralism. García Amado affirms that moral reasons for eventually complying with the rules do not make all the rules moral. Third, García Amado questions the utility of Atienza’s constructivism as support for his moral objectivism. And, finally, he raises some objections to Atienza’s comparison between law, understood as an argumentative practice, and medicine.