Abstract/Summary

This article criticizes the view espoused by Julie Dickson that the study of the nature of law should adopt an indirectly evaluative methodology, one that relies on judgments of importance rather than moral judgments. This view is the cornerstone of what has come to be called methodological positivism. The article argues that, even if indirect evaluation exists, it cannot furnish an argument against moralized jurisprudence, unless supplemented by an account that shows such evaluation is appropriate for the study of law. The article also assesses the claim that indirect evaluation is appropriate for law because law is a concept that figures in people’s beliefs and self-understandings. This claim is found wanting because those beliefs and self-understandings are varied and often conflicting, and indirect evaluation does not have the resources to navigate through the variety and conflict.