As Dworkin presents his idea of ​​political integrity, he begins by presenting his conception of three political ideals: fairness, justice, and procedure regular. A utopian society, he argued, would only need these ideals to thrive because public officials consistently doing what is perfectly just and equitable would ensure consistency. In our ordinary political system, Dworkin believes that integrity must be accepted as a fourth political ideal, if we accept it at all. In his definition of political integrity, Dworkin asserts that it should be used to treat similar cases equally, ensure equality before the law, parallel personal integrity, and require the state to act according to a single set of coherent principles. Simply put, the characterization of political integrity implies complete equality before the law to the extent that all laws are justified by the same principles. Nevertheless, he finds it important to assert that it may well be that some “violations” of integrity are, on balance, better than the alternatives. Dworkin argues that we have two distinct principles regarding political integrity. These principles, legislative and jurisdictional, attempt to make laws morally coherent and allow them to be considered in this way. Furthermore, when he speaks of political integrity, he makes two important basic assumptions. These basic assumptions are that we, as a society, all believe in political fairness and that we know that different people have different views on moral issues that they all consider to be of great importance. From these assumptions and principles, Dworkin presents an interesting view of political compromise in the form of checkerboard laws. Checkerboard laws are laws that address middle of paper......explained under one or another of the current ideals of fairness. or justice, explaining his insistence on including political integrity as an additional ideal. Dworkin argues that society values ​​political integrity for its own sake because of the resulting ability to have internal harmony without direct compromise. By accepting political integrity, he asserts that political society becomes a particular form of community that promotes its moral authority to assume and deploy a monopoly of coercive force. He argues that the community should be considered a distinct moral agent in that social and intellectual practices that treat the community in this way should be protected. With political integrity integrated as an imperative aspect of the law, these practices are accepted without refuting our instincts through internal compromises, such as checkerboard solutions...