Analysis Of Normative Issues

The issue on normative laws has been discussed for thousand years.Ancient Greeks establish ed the normalization by the personal reasons and logos.Romans resorted to natural order that has common rational spirit.In Middle ages,people resorted to God,While in modern times,many peopl e resorted to people’s reasoning recognition until Hume.He made a distinction a gap between is or should be and pointed out establishing norms does not cross the gap.To solve with this gap,Hart not only followed the positivism but also used some philosophical methods,tried to use the concept of rule to reestablish the normative laws.Hart thought that the rule can be divided into 2 kinds from the function.One is giving obligation,the other is to give power.While the scientific key of the law is the combination of obligatory rule and enabling rules.We not only understand the concept of law from the outside,but to grasp the concept of law from the internal aspect.The internal aspect is one kind of obligatory rule.Hart put forward the internal and external point of rule,the rules of primary rules and secondary rules,rules of recognition and a series of concepts,then he adopted sociological method to explain the mechanism of forming rules.Among them,Hart put forward creatively the concept of recognition rule,but he thought it a conceptual abstraction in institutional framework,this abstraction comes from the acceptance of the officials in practice and the effect they give.Both recognition rule and evaluation rule have f activity.And recognition rule may be appeared in specific social situation.The reason why people live in this condition follow the rules to work in that they have a rational internal critical attitude,which has formed the internal normalization of positive law.So both people’s rational critical attitude and external institutional imperative guarantee the effectiveness of the rule.But Ronald.Dworkin regarded Hart’s theory as Archimedean’s philosophy.He thought Hart’s theory construction was in a non-participant position.From his viewpoint,this is Archimedean’s ego,for Hart put more attention on internal view rather than Individual value in practice.The rule expresses rigid anticipate result more,but when the desired result and individual will are in conflict,do they follow the rules as often,or do they consider the legitimacy of individual wills.Behind this question is the tension between group unconsciousness and individual ethical choice,which is still a question worth considering.