Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.docx

Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.docx

《Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.docx（46页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

PositivismandtheSeparationofLawandMorals

PositivismandtheSeparationofLawandMorals

FromHarvardLawReview,Vol.71（1958）,pp.593-529

H.L.A.Hart

InthisarticleIshalldiscussandattempttodefendaviewwhichMr.JusticeHolmes,amongothers,heldandforwhichheandtheyhavebeenmuchcriticized.ButIwishfirsttosaywhyIthinkthatHolmes,whateverthevicissitudesofhisAmericanreputationmaybe,willalwaysremainforEnglishmenaheroicfigureinjurisprudence.Thiswillbesobecausehemagicallycombinedtwoqualities:

oneofthemisimaginativepower,whichEnglishlegalthinkinghasoftenlacked;theotherisclarity,whichEnglishlegalthinkingusuallypossesses.TheEnglishlawyerwhoturnstoreadHolmesismadetoseethatwhathehadtakentobesettledandstableisreallyalwaysonthemove.TomakethisdiscoverywithHolmesistobewithaguidewhosewordsmayleaveyouunconvinced,sometimesevenrepelled,butnevermystified.LikeourOwnAustin,withwhomHolmessharedmanyidealsandthoughts,Holmeswassometimesclearlywrong;butagainlikeAustin,whenthiswassohewasalwayswrongclearly.Thissurelyisasovereignvirtueinjurisprudence.ClarityIknowissaidnottobeenough;thismaybetrue,buttherearestillquestionsinjurisprudenceweretheissuesareconfusedbecausetheyarediscussedinastylewhichHolmeswouldhavespurnedforitsobscurity.Perhapsthisisinevitable:

jurisprudencetremblessouncertainlyonthemarginofmanysubjectsthattherewillalwaysbeneedforsomeone,inBentham'sphrase,"topluckthemaskofMystery"fromitsface!

Thisistrue,toapreeminentdegree,ofthesubjectofthisarticle.Contemporaryvoicestelluswemustrecognizesomethingobscuredbythelegal"positivists"whose

dayisnowover:

thatthereisa"pointofintersectionbetweenlawandmorals,"2orthatwhatisandwhatoughttobearesomehowindissolublyfusedorinseparable,3thoughthepositivistsdeniedit.Whatdothesephrasesmean?

Orratherwhichofthemanythingsthattheycouldmean,dotheymean?

Whichofthemdo"positivists"denyandwhyisitwrongtodoso?

I

Ishallpresentthesubjectaspartofthehistoryofanidea.AtthecloseoftheeighteenthcenturyandthebeginningofthenineteenththemostearnestthinkersinEnglandaboutlegalandsocialproblemsandthearchitectsofgreatreformswerethegreatUtilitarians.Twoofthem,BenthamandAustin,constantlyinsistedontheneedtodistinguish,firmlyandwiththemaximumofclarity,lawasitisfromlawasitoughttobe.Thisthemehauntstheirwork,andtheycondemnedthenatural-lawthinkerspreciselybecausetheyhadblurredthisapparentlysimplebutvitaldistinction.Bycontrast,atthepresenttimeinthiscountryandtoalesserextentinEngland,thisseparationbetweenlawandmoralsisheldtobesuperficialandwrong.Somecriticshavethoughtthatitblindsmentothetruenatureoflawanditsrootsinsociallife.4Othershavethoughtitnotonlyintellectuallymisleadingbutcorruptinginpractice,atitsworstapttoweakenresistancetostatetyrannyorabsolutism5andatitsbestapttobringlawintodisrespect.Thenonpejorativename"LegalPositivism,"likemosttermswhichareusedasmissilesinintellectualbattles,hascometostandforabafflingmultitudeofdifferentsins.Oneofthemisthesin,realoralleged,ofinsisting,asAustinandBenthamdid,ontheseparationoflawasitisandlawasitoughttobe.

Howthenhasthisreversalofthewheelcomeabout?

Whatarethetheoreticalerrorsinthisdistinction?

HavethepracticalconsequencesofstressingthedistinctionasBenthamandAustindidbeenbad?

Shouldwenowrejectitorkeepit?

InconsideringthesequestionsweshouldrecallthesocialphilosophywhichwentalongwiththeUtilitarians'insistenceonthisdistinction.Theystoodfirmlybutontheirownutilitariangroundforalltheprinciplesofliberalisminlawandgovernment.Noonehasevercombined,withsucheven-mindedsanityastheUtilitarians,thepassionforreformwithrespectforlawtogetherwithaduerecognitionoftheneedtocontroltheabuseofpowerevenwhenpowerisinthehandsofreformers.OnebyoneinBentham'sworksyoucanidentifytheelementsoftheRechtstaatandalltheprinciplesforthedefenseofwhichtheterminologyofnaturallawhasinourdaybeenrevived.Herearelibertyofspeech,andof

press,therightofassociation,6theneedthatlawsshouldbepublishedandmadewidelyknownbeforetheyareenforced,7theneedtocontroladministrativeagencies,8theinsistencethatthereshouldbenocriminalliabilitywithoutfault,9andtheimportanceoftheprincipleoflegality,nullapoenasinelege.10Some,Iknow,findthepoliticalandmoralinsightoftheUtilitariansaverysimpleone,butweshouldnotmistakethissimplicityforsuperficialitynorforgethowfavorablytheirsimplicitiescomparewiththeprofunditiesofotherthinkers.Takeonlyoneexample:

Benthamonslavery.Hesaysthe

questionatissueisnotwhetherthosewhoareheldasslavescanreason,butsimplywhethertheysuffer.11DoesthisnotcomparewellwiththediscussionofthequestionintermsofwhetherornottherearesomemenwhomNaturehadfittedonlytobethelivinginstrumentsofothers?

WeoweittoBenthammorethananyoneelsethatwehavestoppeddiscussingthisandsimilarquestionsofsocialpolicyinthatform..

SoBenthamandAustinwerenotdryanalystsfiddlingwith"verbaldistinctionswhilecitiesburned,butwerethevanguardofamovementwhichlabouredwithpassionateintensityandmuchsuccesstobringaboutabettersocietyandbetterlaws.Whythendidtheyinsistontheseparationoflawasitisandlawasitoughttobe?

What

didtheymean?

Letusfirstseewhattheysaid.Austinformulatedthedoctrine:

Theexistenceoflawisonething;itsmerit

ordemeritisanother.Whetheritbeorbe

notisoneenquiry;whetheritbeorbenot

conformabletoanassumedstandard,isa

differentenquiry.Alaw,whichactuallyex-

ists,isalaw,.-thoughwehappentodislike

it,orthoughitvaryfromthetext,by

whichweregulateourapprobationand

disapprobation.Thistruth,whenformally

announcedasanabstractproposition,isso

simpleandglaringthatitseemsidletoin-

sistuponit.Butsimpleandglaringasitis,

whenenunciatedinabstractexpressions

theenumerationoftheinstancesinwhich

ithasbeenforgottenwouldfillavolume.

SirWilliamBlackstone,forexample,says

inhis"Commentaries,"thatthelawsof

Godaresuperiorinobligationtoallother

laws;thatnohumanlawsshouldbesuf-

feredtocontradictthem;thathumanlaws

areofnovalidityifcontrarytothem;and

thatallvalidlawsderivetheirforcefrom

thatDivineoriginal.

Now,hemaymeanthatallhumanlaws

oughttoconformtotheDivinelaws.Ifthis

behismeaning,Iassenttoitwithouthesi-

tation....Perhaps,again,hemeansthat

humanlawgiversarethemselvesobliged

bytheDivinelawstofashionthelaws

whichtheyimposebythatultimatestan-

dard,becauseiftheydonot,Godwill

punishthem.TothisalsoIentirely

assent....

ButthemeaningofthispassageofBlack-

stone,ifithasameaning,seemsratherto

bethis:

thatnohumanlawwhichconflicts

withtheDivinelawisobligatoryorbind-

ing;inotherwords,thatnohumanlaw

whichconflictswiththeDivinelawisa

law....12

Austin'sprotestagainstblurringthedistinctionbetweenwhatlawisandwhatitoughttobeisquitegeneral:

itisamistake,whateverourstandardofwhatoughttobe,whatever"thetextbywhichweregulateourapprobationordisapprobation."Hisexamples,however,arealwaysaconfusionbetweenlawasitisandlawasmorality

wouldrequireittobe.Forhim,itmustberemembered,thefundamentalprinciplesofmoralitywereGod'scommands,towhichutilitywasan"index":

besidesthistherewastheactualacceptedmoralityofasocialgroupor"positive"morality.

BenthaminsistedonthisdistinctionwithoutcharacterizingmoralitybyreferencetoGodbutonly,ofcourse,byreferencetotheprinciplesofutility.Boththinkers'primereasonforthisinsistencewastoenablementoseesteadilythepreciseissuesposedbytheexistenceofmorallybadlaws,andtounderstandthespecificcharacteroftheau-

thorityofalegalorder.Bentham'sgeneralrecipeforlifeunderthegovernmentoflawswassimple:

itwas"toobeypunctually;tocensurefreely."13ButBenthamwasespeciallyaware,asananxiousspectatoroftheFrenchrevolution,thathiswasnot

enough:

thetimemightcomeinanysocietywhenthelaw'scommandsweresoevilthatthequestionofresistancehadtobefaced,anditwasthenessentialthattheissuesatstakeatthispointshouldneitherbeoversimplifiednorobscured.14Yet,thiswaspreciselywhattheconfusionbetweenlawandmoralshaddoneandBenthamfoundthatthecon-

fusionhadspreadsymmetricallyintwodifferentdirections.OntheonehandBenthamhadinmindtheanarchistwhoarguesthus:

"Thisoughtnottobethelaw,thereforeitisnotandIamfreenotmerelytocensurebuttodisregardit."Ontheotherhandhethoughtofthereactionarywhoargues:

"Thisisthelaw,thereforeitiswhatitoughttobe,"

andthusstiflescriticismatitsbirth.Botherrors,Benthamthought,weretobefoundinBlackstone:

therewashisincautiousstatementthathumanlawswereinvalidifcontrarytothelawofGod,15and"thatspiritofobsequiousquietismthatseemsconstitutionalinourAuthor"which"willscarceeverlethimrecogniseadifference"betweenwhat

isandwhatoughttobe.16ThisindeedwasforBenthamtheoccupationaldiseaseoflawyers:

"[I]ntheeyesoflawyers-nottospeakofthe