HEA|  |03031nam a2200193 i 4500
003|  |003
005|  |20140819100535.0
008|  |140819s1977       a     b    000 0 eng d
020|  |▼a9780300010701▼qPaperback▼cUSD25.00
040|  |▼aBJZK▼cBJZK
041|0 |▼aeng
093|  |▼aB82-051
242|  |▼a法律道德
245|00|▼aMorality of Law▼cLon L. Fuller
260|  |▼bYale University Press▼c1977-07-01
300|  |▼a274▼c21 cm.
490|0 |▼aThe Storrs Lectures
520|  |▼aIn a lengthy new concluding -
   |  |chapter labeled "A Reply to Cr-
   |  |itics," Lon L. Fuller extends -
   |  |and clarifies his definition o-
   |  |f the relation between law and-
   |  | morality put forward in the f-
   |  |irst (1964) edition of The Mor-
   |  |ality of Law. His original arg-
   |  |ument distinguishes between th-
   |  |e morality of duty and the mor-
   |  |ality of aspiration, both of w-
   |  |hich bear on the design and op-
   |  |eration of social institutions-
   |  |: the former by setting the ne-
   |  |cessary preconditions of any p-
   |  |urposive social endeavor, the -
   |  |latter by suggesting the direc-
   |  |tions for such endeavor.      -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                       In the -
   |  |revised edition, Fuller takes -
   |  |accurate aim at the school of -
   |  |legal philosophy called the Ne-
   |  |w Analytical Jurists and conti-
   |  |nues his long-running debate w-
   |  |ith his major intellectual ant-
   |  |agonist, H.L.A. Hart. Although-
   |  | the author calls the new chap-
   |  |ter "A Reply to Critics," his -
   |  |expressed reason for undertaki-
   |  |ng it indicates that it is mor-
   |  |e than that: "As critical revi-
   |  |ews of my book came in, I myse-
   |  |lf became increasingly aware o-
   |  |f the extent to which the deba-
   |  |te did indeed depend on \'start-
   |  |ing points\' - not on what the -
   |  |disputants said, but on what t-
   |  |hey considered it unnecessary -
   |  |to say, not on articulated pri-
   |  |nciples but on tacit assumptio-
   |  |ns. What was needed, therefore-
   |  |, it seemed to me, was to brin-
   |  |g these tacit assumptions to m-
   |  |ore adequate expression than e-
   |  |ither side has so far been abl-
   |  |e to do." There is no question-
   |  | that Mr. Fuller here gives th-
   |  |e assumptions of his side adeq-
   |  |uate expression.              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                              -
   |  |                         "The -
   |  |volume must be regarded as an -
   |  |important contribution of gene-
   |  |ral interest to the study of t-
   |  |he nature and function of law.-
   |  |..Trenchant comment abounds th-
   |  |roughout the book, and there i-
   |  |s an immense amount of the mos-
   |  |t valuable material here, as w-
   |  |ell as considerable food for t-
   |  |he thought...his book deserves-
   |  | to reach a very wide audience-
   |  |." - Law Times."The book is a -
   |  |provocative one which is certa-
   |  |in to excite much academic com-
   |  |ment here and abroad." - Harva-
   |  |rd Law Record."Although fully -
   |  |intelligible to the undergradu-
   |  |ate, this book is likely to re-
   |  |ceive its warmest reception fo-
   |  |rm advanced students of the ph-
   |  |ilosophy of law, who will welc-
   |  |ome the relief provided from t-
   |  |he frequently sterile tone of -
   |  |much recent work in the field." - Choice
650| 0|▼aLaw