哈特在《法律的概念》後記中,說明自己的法理論為一般性與描述性,回應眾多批評者,並認為自己的法理論與證立性法理論的理論目的雖然不相同但並不衝突。本文嘗試重新檢視法實證主義的發展脈絡,釐清法實證主義與自然法理論的背景立場,並重新建構哈特式法實證主義最可能採取的理論基礎。 法實證主義與自然法理論長久以來對於倫理學有不同的立場。在知識論上法實證主義以邊沁為首,採取自然主義的態度;自然主義要求任何理論都應該由經驗檢證其真實性。邊沁採取嚴格的自然主義態度,在知識論的架構上傾向基礎論,以最簡單直覺的經驗單元發展效益主義自然化倫理學的標準。在邊沁的自然主義效益主義下,區分解釋者與評論家的角色分工,法實證主義在解釋法律現象至自然化的現象後,作為評論家更有效率評估法律效益的基礎。 邊沁的效益主義被G. E. Moore批評過於簡化「善」的概念,除了在倫理學上的批評外,嚴格的自然主義在科學的概念分析中,亦受到Peter Winch批評其忽略參與者觀點,而無法正確理解人類社會生活種種意義。本文嘗試說明,哈特在自然主義的傾向上,調和邊沁過於簡略的法律與倫理學理論,在參與者觀點下說明法律的概念,然而為了避免扭曲不同參與者立場下的不同詮釋,哈特以一般性的觀點做為法理論的基礎;本文亦嘗試論證哈特式一般性法理論為補充不同觀點間,最佳的中立觀察橋樑,以在具體法律社會下補充特定的謹慎的理由或發展證立的道德理由。
Legal positivism and natural law is two main debating grounds in jurisprudence. Not only each views the issue of ethics in different attitude, but also each has different methodological demand in knowledge. Naturalism demands any theory should be verifiable and verified in experience. Traditional legal positivist Jeremy Bentham established utilitarian principle and legal positivism by his strict naturalism demand. By naturalized moral standard in utilitarian standard test of happiness, and set the division of censor and expositor in legal study. Bentham modified his legal positivism as a stable bridge of rule-utilitarian in better position to evaluate and reform new naturalized utilitarian standard. Bentham’s legal positivism and utilitarian was criticized not only in Ethics for undefinable good, but also in the restricted view of naturalism. Strict naturalism tends to explain phenomenon in foundationalism view of knowledge and ignores other possible conceptions in human activities. Peter Winch and other analytic philosophers in twentieth century criticized the foundationalism view of naturalism, and emphasized the participant perspectives in understanding human society. H. L. A. Hart among other philosophers provided insight in understanding human society particular in law. However, there are tensions between Hart’s naturalism demand and internal accuracy. I have argue it is this tensions lead to Hart had clarify his legal theory is both general and descriptive in The Concept of Law’s Postscript. By maintaining the general and descriptive legal theory, Hart is able to provide the broadest explanation while avoid distorting any particular perspective in multiple perspectives of legal phenomenon. The legal positivism’s project to better understanding and evaluation the law will even more fruitful in supplementing legal realism and natural law perspective of particular legal system.