According to Dworkin, a legal principle maximally contributes to such a justification if and only if it satisfies two conditions: Publications Pages Publications Pages. The imperativalists' account of obligation is also subject to decisive objections Hart, 1994, pp. Hacker, P. Prominent inclusive positivists include Jules Coleman and H. It means that our concern for its justice as one of its virtues cannot be sidelined by any claim of the sort that law's purpose is to be law, to its most excellent degree.
And this division of labour is not a normatively neutral fact about law; it is politically charged, for it sets up the possibility of law becoming remote from the life of a society, a hazard to which Hart is acutely alert 1994, p. Each of them contributes to an understanding of the nature of law.
Within legal doctrine, legal positivism would be opposed to sociological jurisprudence and hermeneutics of law, which study the concrete prevailing circumstances of statutory interpretation in society.
The idea, familiar from Section II, is that a rule of recognition can incorporate content-based constraints on legal validity, even those rooted ultimately in morality.
Such theists and relativists apply to morality the constraints that legal positivists think hold for law. Like all social rules, then, the rule of recognition has an external and internal aspect.
Hart believes it is this double aspect of the rule of recognition that accounts for its normativity and enables him to distinguish his theory from Austin's view of law as a system of coercive commands. If sound, the Midas Principle holds in general and not only with respect to morality, as Kelsen makes clear.
The law tells us what we must do, not merely what it would be virtuous or advantageous to do, and it requires us to act without regard to our individual self-interest but in the interests of other individuals, or in the public interest more generally except when law itself permits otherwise.
Does this make mathematics part of the law? Legal kinds such as courts, decisions, and rules will not appear in a purely physical description of the universe and may not even appear in every social description.
So the project of the semantic theories, the project of digging out shared rules from a careful study of what lawyers say and do, would be doomed to fail Dworkin 1986, p. One might hazard the following guess.
Robert P. It has to be said, however, that Hart himself does not consistently view legal references to morality as marking a zone of discretion.