To what extent should the moral convictions of a judge chime with his opinions on what is law? Lawyers, sociologists, philosophers, politicians and judges have all answered this question: the answers have ranged from 'in full' to 'not at all'. Ronald Dworkin claims that the issue is much more complex than is often thought and involves a variety of spheres - semantic, jurisprudential and doctrinal - in which law and morality are undoubtedly interwoven. To think about law not as separate to morality, but as part of it, "would encourage us to view jurisprudential questions as moral questions regarding how, to what extent and for what authoritative reason, collective decisions should have the last word in our lives." In this debate with many of the most influential contemporary jurists and philosophers, from Isaiah Berlin to Cass Sunstein, Antonin Scalia and Joseph Raz, the author delivers a model of lucid, logical and dispassionate reasoning on the role of justice in law by one of the most authoritative contemporary philosophers and jurists.