如何区分实然法与应然法?——奥斯丁法哲学悖论解析  

How to Distinguish between Law as It Is and Law as It Ought to Be?:An Analysis of the Paradox of John Austin's Jurisprudence

作　　者：刘清平 Liu Qingping

机构地区：[1]武汉传媒学院电影与电视学院,武汉430205

出　　处：《南京社会科学》2023年第7期27-36,共10页Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences

摘　　要：约翰·奥斯丁自觉区分了实证法以及实证道德共同包含的实然维度与应然维度,并明确肯定了法与道德的内在关联,因而提出了一些远比哈特等后世追随者深刻的见解。可是,由于不了解认知需要与非认知需要的微妙差异对这种区分的决定性作用,奥斯丁在某些问题上又犯下了把实然与应然混为一谈的理论谬误,不仅声称应然性的效益原则本身就是实然性的科学真理,而且主张实证法的实然效力构成了应然性的正义标准,结果陷入了一些难以自圆其说的逻辑矛盾,尤其在“恶法亦法”的问题上展现了法律实证主义严重扭曲正义感的深度悖论。John Austin consciously distinguished the"as it is"and"as it ought to be"dimensions of positive law and positive morality,and affirmed the internal relationship between law and morality,even surpassing H.L.A Hart and other followers in these aspects.Because he did not understand the decisive role of the subtle difference between cognitive needs and non-cognitive needs in making this distinction,however,he committed the theoretical fallacy of confusing"as it is"and"as it ought to be"on some important issues.He not only claimed that the utility principle"as it ought to be"is a scientific truth"as it is",but also advocated that the actual effect of positive law"as it is"is the standard of justice"as it ought to be",with the result that eventually he fell into various logical contradictions and met the deep paradox of legal positivism distorting the sense of justice especially on the issues of"evil law as law".

关 键 词：约翰·奥斯丁 法律实证主义 实证法与实证道德 实然法与应然法 恶法亦法 

分 类 号：D90[政治法律—法学理论]