The degree to which these questions concern opinion, do not deny them of objective answers, and certainly do not detract from their value as questions to law in general: https://law.stackexchange.com/q/11336/89, https://law.stackexchange.com/q/11167/89, https://law.stackexchange.com/q/9534/89.

  • Especially where the community closes questions (and I'll define this as five users closing a question, even if the fifth vote is cast by a moderator), you need a good reason to ask moderators to override the voting process. While any of the the answers to the duplicate will suffice, I'll briefly address each of your questions here: we're not mind readers, we don't have a crystal ball, and we're not mind readers.
    – jimsug
    Jul 25, 2016 at 21:52

1 Answer 1


Regarding the latter perspective, there is a difference between "of some value to the study of law" and "suitable as a question for Stackexchange". The premise of Stackexchange is that this is a place for people to get the answer to a question about law, not a collection of answers. The ideal is that there is a single correct answer. I don't see how that could be the case with the Hart question. Except in rare cases, questions that psychologize an author's reasons for saying one thing versus another are speculative, not based on solid fact.

I also disagree with the belief that opinion and objectivity are compatible. Subjectivity is the epistemological foundation of opinion, and objectivity is the epistemological foundation of factual reporting. There is a way to spin subjectivity so that it looks like objectivity, by presupposing but obscuring important premises. For example, the answer to the question about UK law students would be "No", given the unspoken premise that UK lawyers never have to deal with legal claims against or from the EU. Or, "Yes", if that premise is denied. Either answer would be equally valid. Which answer do you up-vote and accept?