Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals.¶
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, 71(4), 593-629.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Prototype Theory
- Linguistics and lexicography. Word senses cluster around a central use; dictionary entries lead with the prototypical sense and add the periphery; family-resemblance accounts of polysemy organize meanings around a center. Design and branding. A product line, brand voice, or design system has central archetypes — the iconic model, the canonical voice — that anchor identity, while variants drift outward without losing membership. Law and policy. Statutory categories often run on paradigm cases — the prototypical "vehicle in the park" being a car — with doctrine extending outward by analogy, and edge cases decided by proximity to central examples.
This sourceIntroduces the "no vehicles in the park" example, with the automobile as the paradigm case and edge cases decided by proximity to it.
- Linguistics and lexicography. Word senses cluster around a central use; dictionary entries lead with the prototypical sense and add the periphery; family-resemblance accounts of polysemy organize meanings around a center. Design and branding. A product line, brand voice, or design system has central archetypes — the iconic model, the canonical voice — that anchor identity, while variants drift outward without losing membership. Law and policy. Statutory categories often run on paradigm cases — the prototypical "vehicle in the park" being a car — with doctrine extending outward by analogy, and edge cases decided by proximity to central examples.
Domain-specific¶
- Is-Ought Problem
- each accounting for the fact-value relation under the constraint that facts do not entail values. Normative and applied ethics — bioethics, environmental ethics, and AI ethics arguments must combine empirical premises with avowed ethical principles to reach any prescription. Political philosophy — constrains how empirical findings ("this policy reduces inequality") become recommendations ("this policy ought to be adopted") only via an added normative premise. Philosophy of science and the science-policy interface — expert advisory bodies, climate-assessment framings, and bioethics commissions operate under the constraint and must own their normative premises; findings inform without settling. Legal philosophy — underwrites legal positivism's separation of law as it is from law as it ought to be (Hart, 1958)
This sourceThe source supports that legal positivism separates law as it is from law as it ought to be and that Hart defends this; the readable abstract does not tie it to the is–ought problem. Hart's defence of legal positivism against the criticism that the separation of law as it is from law as it ought to be leaves law without a moral anchor.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“One of them is the sin, real or alleged, of insisting, as Austin and Bentham did, on the separation of law as it is and law as it ought to be.”
- each accounting for the fact-value relation under the constraint that facts do not entail values. Normative and applied ethics — bioethics, environmental ethics, and AI ethics arguments must combine empirical premises with avowed ethical principles to reach any prescription. Political philosophy — constrains how empirical findings ("this policy reduces inequality") become recommendations ("this policy ought to be adopted") only via an added normative premise. Philosophy of science and the science-policy interface — expert advisory bodies, climate-assessment framings, and bioethics commissions operate under the constraint and must own their normative premises; findings inform without settling. Legal philosophy — underwrites legal positivism's separation of law as it is from law as it ought to be (Hart, 1958)
Mechanisms¶
- Borderline Whole Review Protocol
- This is the machinery for a concept's penumbra
This sourceDistinguishes a rule’s core of settled meaning from its penumbra, where the rule no longer determines an answer and judgment is required.
- This is the machinery for a concept's penumbra
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 3 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:737a6ab3661a · see in the full table