Judge Hercules or Judge Bayes?

Here is the abstract of one of our thought experiments, which we have been working on over the holidays:

This paper explores two possible connections between hard cases in law and Newcomb’s Paradox in philosophy. One is that Newcomb’s Problem is like a “hard case” in law–i.e. a choice problem with conflicting and equally logical solutions. The other is that the “superior Being” in Newcomb’s Problem and the mythical Judge Hercules in Ronald Dworkin’s theory of law are the same person. In particular, we claim that Judge Hercules, who we would rechristen Judge Bayes, has the near-perfect ability to predict the outcome of hard cases …

Our paper is about 3000 words. Fear not. We will make a complete draft of our paper–tentatively titled “Hard Cases, Newcomb’s Problem, and the Prediction Theory of Law”–available soon via SSRN. Addendum (1/13): Here is a link to our working paper.

Unknown's avatar

About F. E. Guerra-Pujol

When I’m not blogging, I am a business law professor at the University of Central Florida.
This entry was posted in Law, Philosophy, Probability and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Judge Hercules or Judge Bayes?

  1. Pingback: Is Riggs v. Palmer a “hard case”? | prior probability

Leave a comment