Some legal philosophers maintain that the Rule of Law is morally neutral and, indeed, that this neutrality is the very feature that renders this ideal universally commendable. Against that view, Dr. Smith argues that the Rule of Law is a valid ideal only because it is a good that serves a morally worthy purpose. Indeed, even a defender of the value-neutral position must inescapably incorporate some moral values, deliberately or not.
In her article Neutrality Isn’t Neutral: On the Value-Neutrality of the Rule of Law,1 Dr. Smith presents five distinct rationales in support of the value-neutral position, and offers a critique of each. Her lecture will make the positive case for the moral value of the Rule of Law, turning heavily on the nature of objectivity and the principle that form follows function.
While the issue may initially seem esoteric, what is at stake is a society’s ability to truly enjoy the Rule of Law and its countless practical benefits.
Tara Smith PhD, Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Smith is professor of philosophy at the University of Texas, where she holds the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism and the Anthem Foundation Fellowship. A specialist in moral, legal and political philosophy, she has published books on values, virtues and individual rights, and is now writing a book on objectivity in judicial review. Smith frequently lectures for the Ayn Rand Institute, and serves as a member of its Board of Directors.
We are planning to transmit the meeting live to our members in Bergen and Tromsø.