{"title":"哈特是包容性实证主义者吗?","authors":"João Costa‐Neto, Henrique Porto de Castro","doi":"10.1111/raju.12402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After the publication of Hart's <jats:italic>Concept of Law</jats:italic>, Dworkin published his article “The Model of Rules,” dividing positivism into two varieties: inclusive and exclusive. Many theorists involved in this debate have characterized Hart's position as inclusivist, which we reject in this article. We argue that Hart, in the postscript to <jats:italic>The Concept of Law</jats:italic>, conceded a point to Dworkin in accepting that inclusive positivism would imply the existence of objective moral standing, adopting a more “neutral” position—compatible with inclusive and exclusive positivism—and consequently distancing himself from the incorporation thesis, which is paramount to inclusive positivism.","PeriodicalId":45892,"journal":{"name":"Ratio Juris","volume":"357 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Was Hart an Inclusive Positivist?\",\"authors\":\"João Costa‐Neto, Henrique Porto de Castro\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/raju.12402\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After the publication of Hart's <jats:italic>Concept of Law</jats:italic>, Dworkin published his article “The Model of Rules,” dividing positivism into two varieties: inclusive and exclusive. Many theorists involved in this debate have characterized Hart's position as inclusivist, which we reject in this article. We argue that Hart, in the postscript to <jats:italic>The Concept of Law</jats:italic>, conceded a point to Dworkin in accepting that inclusive positivism would imply the existence of objective moral standing, adopting a more “neutral” position—compatible with inclusive and exclusive positivism—and consequently distancing himself from the incorporation thesis, which is paramount to inclusive positivism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ratio Juris\",\"volume\":\"357 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ratio Juris\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12402\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ratio Juris","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
After the publication of Hart's Concept of Law, Dworkin published his article “The Model of Rules,” dividing positivism into two varieties: inclusive and exclusive. Many theorists involved in this debate have characterized Hart's position as inclusivist, which we reject in this article. We argue that Hart, in the postscript to The Concept of Law, conceded a point to Dworkin in accepting that inclusive positivism would imply the existence of objective moral standing, adopting a more “neutral” position—compatible with inclusive and exclusive positivism—and consequently distancing himself from the incorporation thesis, which is paramount to inclusive positivism.