On the Relationship Between Law and Morality

Abstract. Instead of being embarrassed and uneasy about the implications of the separation thesis, positivists should welcome the fact that they cannot account for the obligatoriness of law. The rule of recognition is only a social rule and introduces no grounds for obligation.     

法律与道德关系新论

当今我国的法制建设已经面临着两大任务:一是国内法律体系与 WTO 的衔接、协调与统一,使国内法接受WTO 的检测并与国际接轨;二要与国内接轨,要求现行的法律接受新时期社会主义道德的检测,使得我国的法律与社会主义道德相协调,并使我国的社会主义法律具有更加广阔的道德基础与人性内涵,从而使我国社会主义法律真正代表我国法律文化的最先进的方向。     

On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin's Critique

In this article the author adduces a non‐positivist argument for a necessary connection between law and morality; the argument is based on the claim to correctness, and it is directed to an attack stemming from Eugenio Bulygin. The heart of the controversy is the claim to correctness. The author first attempts to show that there are good reasons for maintaining that law necessarily raises a claim to correctness. He argues, second, for the thesis that this claim has moral implications. Finally, he attempts to refute Bulygin's objection that the claim‐based argument for non‐positivism boils down to contradiction and triviality.     

Alexy's Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality

This paper criticizes Alexy's argument on the necessary connection between law and morality. First of all, the author discusses some aspects of the notion of the claim to correctness. Basically, it is highly doubtful that all legal authorities share the same idea of moral correctness. Secondly, the author argues that the claim to correctness is not a defining characteristic of the concepts of “legal norm” and “legal system”. Hence, the thesis of a necessary connection between law and morality based on such claim cannot be accepted. 1 Abstract by Antonino Rotolo.
     

Law and Morality: A Critical Relation*

Abstract. The article deals with the difference between some forms of legal positivism. It is argued that, even in continental legal systems which are typically “rule bound,” there is some space left for principles in the legal system. The author tries to explain how this space can be filled and what methods should be used by a judge to do so.     

法与德的冲突及其法理思考

作为社会调整的基本规范,法与德冲突与互补同在,矛盾与互动并行。透视该种态势存在的根据,把握两种规范的社会定位,缓解乃至部分消除法与德的冲突,建立两者之间的协调互动关系,正是本文主旨所在。实践中的执法、司法的道德化倾向不仅混淆了法与德的界限,而且背离了法治社会的本质要求。     

On Law and Morality. A Dialogue

Abstract. The dialogue focusses on the distinctions and connections between law and morality. Morality is seen as axiological in character, whereas law is deontological. The possibility of a conceptual tie between goodness (axiology) and duty (deontology) is firmly disputed. Habermas's discursive foundation of ethics is criticized because it seems to confer on moral principles the status of a priori synthetic truths. Every moral idea has a cultural relativity which is not taken into account by Habermasian dialogue ethics. The moral and the legal points of view are kept separate: A law which does not satisfy the requirements of a "minimum content" of natural law is not said to be "law," but simply falling short of moral criteria. The possibility of introducing rational guarantees into moral discourse is not denied, but doubt remains as to whether there are "right answers" to moral questions.     

道德性:法律的人性之维——兼论法与道德的关系

法是人类社会特有的一种社会现象,所以对法的研究最终不可能不追寻到人的本性.但能作为法律基础的人的本性只是道德性,道德的最高境界是正义,它是一种理想的人际关系和社会制度,在其中人人受到尊重和关爱,人人各尽其能,各得其所.人的行为它必须借助于法律这样的公共权力使一个社会人们的行为保持道德性的一种制度安排.因此,道德性是法律的人性基础,是制定和实施法律的出发点和归宿点.     

论法和道德的现实与未来的冲突及构造

道德是法的价值核心．法是基本道德的国家强制。以建立社会主义法治国家为目标的中国应完成的任务不能仅仅只是法律体系的完备与转型,即停留在道德的法律化阶段,更重要的在于实现法律的道德化,即法与道德的和谐。     

Hart,Radbruch and the Necessary Connection Between Law and Morals

Law and Philosophy - Legal positivism maintains a distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be. In other words, for positivists, a law can be legally valid even if it is immoral. H....     

论法律与道德的相对分离

提出区分法律的调整范围与道德的调整范围的三个标准。不仅要以善良道德为标准审查法律,而且要以良法为标准审查道德。以法律手段制裁“不道德行为”缺乏法理依据。世界各个民族的古代社会都经历过法律与道德未分化的时期。西方逐步形成的法律与道德相对分离的传统促进了道德的更新和法律的进化。中国古代保持的法律与道德相混同的传统阻碍了道德的更新和法律的进化。在法学研究和法律实践上应认真吸收法律与道德相对分离这一文明成果。     

Morality and Law

Abstract. The controversy over law and morality between positivists and normativists is largely a result of failure on both sides to understand the idea of authority. The author argues that Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas and Hobbes held a common notion of legal authority that was distinctively moral. They all saw the virtue of law (and the source of legal obligation) in the equal protection it provides for all against the disorder to which passion makes men vulnerable, and not in the justice of its provisions. Michael Oakeshott, among contemporary theorists, best illustrates this approach to a resolution of the differences between positivists and normativists.     

论刑法八大关系

在刑法的立法过程中 ,立法者面临着巨大的、不可逾越的困难 ,相互矛盾的、口不应心的各种关系 ,对立法者来说无法回避 ,甚至会陷入两难。新法典的产生 ,是立法者对各种矛盾关系、关联范畴进行梳理、整和、协调的结果。     

论国际法与国内法的辨证关系

国际法与国内法的关系问题是国际法的一个基本理论问题,其实质是国内法在国际交往关系中占居何种地位以及国家如何在国内执行国际法。本文在回顾国际法与国内法关系的有关理论的基础上,论述了国际法与国内法的本质区别和相互联系,较客观地揭示了国际法与国内法的辩证关系。     

法律与宗教关系的多向度追问

作为共同调整人类社会的规范,法律与宗教存在着千丝万缕、多个向度的联系。从目的指向来看,法律与宗教都关心人类生存的方式与意义;从思想和制度角度来看,法律中的许多思想和制度都发源于宗教和宗教规范;从西方法治建设的演进历程来看,西方法治的形成得益于人们从内心真正信仰宗教权威与规范的传统;从功能上来看,法律和宗教都有凝聚和调试社会等功能,共同成为维系社会的纽带。当下中国,深刻认识宗教与法律的多向度关系之于落实依法治国以及正确应对宗教社会问题都具有重大的意义。     

Deception in Morality and Law

Law and Philosophy -     

Law and Morality at War

Through a critical engagement with Jeremy Waldron’s work, as well as the work of other writers, I offer an account of the relative scope of the morality of war, the laws of war, and war crimes. I propose an instrumentalist account of the laws of war, according to which the laws of war should help soldiers conform to the morality of war. The instrumentalist account supports Waldron’s conclusion that the laws of war justifiably prohibit attacks on civilians even if it turns out that some civilians lack a moral right not to be killed. Importantly, the instrumentalist account also offers what Waldron thinks impossible: a non-consequentialist defense of the failure of the laws of war to prohibit the killing of nonthreatening combatants. Finally, I argue that new war crimes can be broader than the morality of war as well as established laws of war and that many of the arguments for defining war crimes more narrowly than either the morality of war or the laws of war are unconvincing. In all of these ways, I hope to carry forward Waldron’s project of exploring the relationship between law and morality in war.