UC知道急求汉译英！！！在线等！
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/07/02 14:39:45
由此，似乎奥斯丁的理论是相互矛盾的，我认为，实际上，奥斯丁和边沁一样，把法律科学分为两类：立法学和法理学。前者是关于法律应该是什么的科学，后者是关于法律实际上是什么的科学。这一区分把自然法理论归于立法学的范围，因为自然法实质上就是要确定法律的评价尺度和标准、立法应该遵循的原则，在奥斯丁看来这不属于科学法理学的范围。奥斯丁认为法律的价值评价属于立法领域，后者属于法理学研究的问题。但是这并不代表他不重视前者。他的立场是：这一工作不属于他所说的科学的法理学的研究范围，“科学法理学”研究的主题是实在法，它只探讨法律实际上是什么，而与它的好坏无关。关于实在法的好坏，或实在法应该是什么的问题，那不是科学法理学探讨的问题，而是另一门学科，即立法学探讨的对象。
因此，认为奥斯丁的理论完全主张法律与道德分离，在一定意义上，是一种误读。实际上，奥斯丁在立法学的范围内，承认立法者受到神法或道德法的约束。
On the other hand, Austin also pointed out that God is God for human settings is the strict sense of the law. Law and human responsibility to set up similar to the responsibility of setting the Law of God may be called "religious duty." That lawmakers should act in accordance with its utilitarian principles, developed in line with the utilitarian principle of the law. Utilitarian principle is a direct measure of people's behavior, in this sense, God is the ultimate standard or scale, and the utilitarian principles or the general well-being and general good, should be consistent with the divine, the principle of utilitarianism is a kind of divine tags channels.
Thus, it seems that Austin's theory is contradictory, I think, in fact, as Austin and Bentham, the legal science is divided into two categories: legislation and jurisprudence. The former is what the law should be on the science, which is about what the law is actually science. The distinction bet