The Inquiry On Hart's Thought Of The Relationship Of Law And Morals

H. L. A. Hart established a grand and self-consistent jurisprudence system and saved western Anglo-American legal philosophy, basing on his attitude of positivism, liberal standpoint, analytic road and moral philosopher's feelings. He inherited and developed analytic thought of Bentham, Austin and Kelsen, analyzed legal concept and phenomenon using analytic philosophy of language successfully, engrafted Hume-rule in his descriptive legal theory directly, treated the legal essence in a broader viewpoint, researched Law, Morals and the relationship of Law and Morals with keenness to details and clarity of expression, deepened the Separation Thesis and refined the propositions of legal positivism further, at last became the initiator of the Neo-Analysis Jurisprudence. Although Hart suffered dissenters'attacks, his thought can not be approved wrong: Fuller launched into an elaborate explanation of inner morality of law theory; Dworkin established interpretive legal theory on the base of Hart's theory. At the same time, Hart's declaration that his theory belonged to the Soft Positivism indicated its localization: the analytic philosophy of language is not significant to the construction of the legal institution, the rules of recognition teems with blunders, the division of Fact-and-Value should combine into a unit in practice sphere, natural rights are self-evident. So, in the primary stage of constitutionality in China, it's very significant for us to study his thought: not only can it enhance rule awareness, but also solve the problems in modern law that the constitutionality takes root on what and how to put the law in practice. And, considering the challenge of the Separation Thesis, the constitutionality in China should be the rule of good law. Finally, Hart's ideology's reference meaning to our scholarly pursuits is that: we should maintain scientific objectivity and the neutrality beyond the individual value, not use moral logic instead of legal logic, not moral standard instead of legal standard simply and we must make a difference between the two.