lect12-第5节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


advantage；　as　it　seems　to　me；　through　the　modifications　it　would


necessitate　in　Austin's　manner　of　discussing　Morality；　though　the


subject　is　not　one　which　can　be　here　treated　with　completeness。


The　position　at　which　many　readers　have　stumbled　　I　do　not


affect　to　do　more　than　state　it　in　popular　language　　is　that


the　sanction　of　moral　rules；　as　such；　is　the　disapprobation　which


one's　fellow…men　manifest　at　their　violation。　It　is　sometimes


construed　to　mean　that　the　only　motive　for　obeying　moral　rules　is


the　fear　of　such　disapprobation。　Such　a　construction　of　Austin's


language　is　an　entire　misconception　of　his　meaning；　but；　if　the


order　of　discussion　which　I　advocate　had　been　followed；　I　do　not


think　it　could　ever　possibly　occur　to　any　mind。　Let　us　suppose


Austin　to　have　completed　his　analysis　of　Sovereignty　and　of　the


conceptions　immediately　dependent　on　it；　law；　legal　right；　and


legal　obligation。　He　would　then　have　to　examine　that　great　mass


of　rules；　which　men　in　fact　obey；　which　have　some　of　the


characteristics　of　laws；　but　which　are　not　（as　such）　imposed　by


Sovereigns　on　subjects；　and　which　are　not　（as　such）　enforced　by


the　sanction　supplied　by　Sovereign　power。　It　would　be；　of　course；


incumbent　on　the　philosophical　jurist　to　examine　these　rules；


because　Sovereigns　being　by　his　hypothesis　human　superiors　are；


as　human　beings；　subject　to　them。　Austin　has；　in　fact；　examined


them　from　this　point　of　view　in　some　of　his　most　interesting


passages。　While　insisting　that　Sovereignty　is　from　the　nature　of


the　case　incapable　of　legal　limitation；　he　fully　admits　that


Sovereigns　are　restrained　from　issuing　some　commands　and


determined　to　issue　others　by　rules　which；　though　they　are　not


laws；　are　of　extreme　cogency。　The　Crown　and　Parliament　of　Great


Britain　are　in　his　view　Sovereign　　a　sovereign　aristocracy；　as


he　would　call　it　　but；　though　this　aristocracy　could　for


purposes　of　argument　do　anything　it　pleased；　it　would　be　out


raging　all　experience　to　assert　that　it　does　this。　That　great


body　of　rules　which　is　embodied　in　constitutional　maxims　keeps　it


from　doing　some　things；　that　great　body　of　rules　which　in


ordinary　usage　are　called　moral　keeps　it　from　doing　others。　What


common　characteristics　has　this　aggregate　of　rules　which　operate


on　men　and　on　Sovereigns；　like　other　men？　Austin；　as　you　know；


names　it　'positive　morality'；　and　says　that　its　sanction　is


opinion；　or　the　disapproval　of　the　bulk　of　the　community


following　on　its　violation。　Properly　understood；　this　last　is　an


obviously　true　proposition；　for　what　is　meant　is　that　public


disapprobation　is　the　one　sanction　which　all　these　rules　have　in


common。　The　rule　which　keeps　the　Crown　and　Parliament　from


declaring　murder　legal；　and　the　rule　which　keeps　them　from


allowing　the　Queen　to　govern　without　Ministers；　are　connected


together　through　the　penalty　attendant　on　a　breach　of　them；　which


is　the　strong　disapprobation　of　a　majority　of　Englishmen；　and　it


is　their　having　a　sanction　of　some　kind　which　principally


connects　both　rules　with　laws　proper。　But；　though　fear　of　opinion


be　a　motive　for　obedience　to　both　rules；　it　does　not　at　all


follow　that　the　sole　motive　for　obedience　to　both　rules　is　fear


of　opinion。　This　fear　would　be　allowed　by　most　people　to　be　the


chief；　if　not　the　exclusive；　motive　for　obedience　to


constitutional　rules；　but　such　an　admission　involves　no　necessary


assertion　whatever　as　to　the　complete　sanction　of　moral　rules。


The　truth　is　that　Austin's　system　is　consistent　with　any　ethical


theory；　and；　if　Austin　seems　to　assert　the　contrary；　I　think　the


cause　is　to　be　sought　in　his　firm　conviction　of　the　truth　of　his


own　ethical　creed；　which；　I　need　not　say；　was　Utilitarianism　in


its　earlier　shape　I　do　not；　indeed；　for　a　moment　intend　to　deny


that　the　careful　study　of　Austin　would　probably　modify　the


student's　view　of　morals。　The　discussion　of　ethics；　like　many


others；　is　conducted　amid　much　obscurity　of　thought；　and　there　is


no　specific　more　sovereign　for　dispelling　such　obscurity　than　the


association　of　the　cardinal　terms　which　enter　into　our　enquiry


with　absolutely　consistent　meanings；　and　the　employment　of　the


terms　with　these　meanings　as　a　test　for　the　detection　of


equivocal　phraseology。　It　is　the　one　inestimable　service　of　the


Analytical　School　to　jurisprudence　and　morals　that　it　furnishes


them　with　a　rigidly　consistent　terminology。　But　there　is　not　the


faintest　reason　for　thinking　that　the　intelligent　and


appreciative　student　of　the　system　must　necessarily　be　an


utilitarian。


　　　　I　shall　state　hereafter　what　I　believe　to　be　the　true　point


of　contact　between　Austin's　system　and　the　utilitarian


philosophy。　Meantime；　devotion　to　this　philosophy；　coupled　with


what　I　hold　to　be　a　faulty　arrangement；　has　produced　the　most


serious　blemish　in　the　'Province　of　Jurisprudence　Determined。'


The　2nd；　3rd；　and　4th　Lectures　are　occupied　with　an　attempt　to


identify　the　law　of　God　and　the　law　of　Nature　（so　far　as　these


last　words　can　be　allowed　to　have　any　meaning）　with　the　rules


required　by　the　theory　of　utility。　The　lectures　contain　many


just；　interesting；　and　valuable　observations；　but　the


identification；　which　is　their　object；　is　quite　gratuitous　and


valueless　for　any　purpose。　Written；　I　doubt　not；　in　the　honest


belief　that　they　would　help　to　obviate　or　remove　prejudices；　they


have　attracted　to　Austin's　system　a　whole　cloud　of　prejudices


both　from　the　theological　and　from　the　philosophical　side。　If；


however；　following　the　order　I　have　suggested；　Austin；　after


concluding　the　examination　of　the　nature　of　Sovereignty　and　of


positive　law；　had　entered　on　an　enquiry　into　the　nature　of　the


laws　of　God；　it　must　have　taken　the　form　of　an　investigation　of


the　question　how　far　the　characteristics　of　the　human　superiors


called　Sovereigns　can　be　supposed　to　attach　to　an　all…powerful


and　non…human　ruler；　and　how　many　of　the　conceptions　dependent　on


human　Sovereignty　must　be　considered　as　contained　in　his


commands。　I　much　doubt　whether　such　an　enquiry　would　have　seemed


called　for　in　a　treatise　like　Austin's。　Taken　at　its　best；　it　is


a　discussion　belonging　not　to　the　philosophy　of　law　but　to　the


philosophy　of　legislation。　The　jurist；　properly　so　called；　has


nothing　to　do　with　any　ideal　standard　of　law　or　morals。