Abstract:In the last century there occurred a famous debate between H.L.A.Hart and Lon L.Fuller over the relationship of law and morality,which has been seen as the historic confrontation between legal positivists and natural law thinkers.As the debate ended,it is usually delineated that the legal positivists insist on the separation of law and morality and the natural law thinkers insist on the un-separation of law and morality.This is almost the settled conclusion about the debate.Such a blanket conclusion,however,should have concealed the debaters' deep awareness of jurisprudent problems and its profound significance in legal practice.In the debate,Hart definitely defended the legal positivism against criticisms which appeared at his time and reiterated a strict separation of law and morality.The separation thesis which is typically formulated in terms of ″the separation of law as it is and law as it ought to be″,according to Hart's explication, means two simple things: first,in the absence of an expressed constitutional or legal provision,it could not follow from the mere fact that a rule violated standards of morality that it was not a rule;second,it could not follow from the mere fact that a rule was morally desirable that it was a rule of law.Here actually exist two kinds of ″morality″-one refers to ″all notions of ′what law ought to be′ ″ in the conceptually general sense and the other refers to ″extra-legal notions of′ what law ought to be′ ″ in the practically applied sense.Correspondingly,there also exist two kinds of ″separation″:one means the exclusion of all values,including internal legal value,from law as facts and the other only means the exclusion of extra-legal value from law.Usually Hart and his predecessor held the separation thesis in the second meaning in order to define the range of law accurately and make fidelity to law possible.But sometimes they,especially Hart,tended to extend the separation-proposition to the more general level to such an extent of eliminating internal legal value from law and this to some degree directly led to Fuller's counterthrust at positivist separation-advocacy.In Fuller's opinion,the positivist position of separating morality from law is theoretically inadequate,if fidelity to law is the common-shared goal.Once the law was stripped of its own value,there would be no way to guarantee that law possesses the qualities of deserving loyalty.Moreover,separating morality from law would in practice lead to the dilemma of ″evil law is the law″,which would make the obligation of fidelity to law meaningless and even have to scarify the ideal of fidelity to law at last in order to fulfill the basic demand for justice.It would also make for the impossibility of realizing the ideal of fidelity to law because of the fact that there is no legal criterion for judges of what they should do in order to discharge their duty of fidelity to law when they are involved in difficult situations in that some choices have to be made during the every-day's operation of law.So only when the moral ingredients of what law ought to be have been incorporated into the concept of law could the quality of deserving man's respects for law be assured and would the realization of the ideal of fidelity to law become possible and necessary.According to Fuller's perspective,law as a human enterprise,has its own purpose and this very intrinsic purpose generates the law's internal morality of which Fuller had discerned eight desiderata.This morality constitutes the conditions for the existence of a legal system and guides and constrains the official behaviors during the process of creation and implementation of legal rules so that the evil law could be effectively avoided and the legitimacy of legal system could be ensured.Meanwhile,the internal morality could supply to judges some criterion which is no longer the substantial criterion provided by traditional natural law but the procedural one of what law ought to be and make it possible for judges to apply and interpret the law on the secure footing even in the disputable situation.Therefore,law and morality have necessary connection,Fuller argued.At first appearance,this debate focused on whether or not law and morality are or ought to be separated and Hart and Fuller proposed the completely opposite viewpoints.But after a close analysis of what the separation-thesis and connection-thesis really mean,it shows that both(Hart's) position of separation and Fuller's position of connection had stressed the essential yet different aspects under their distinctive question awareness for maintaining the rule of law.When Hart insisted on the separation of law and morality,he was mainly stressing the independence of law on morality and justice in the judicial process and to this somewhat ″qualified separation″ Fuller had no intention to object.When Fuller insisted on the connection of law and morality,he was stressing the urgent need for internal legal morality in order to keep the integrity of law itself after being stripped of all kinds of the extra-legal morality and with this ″connection after being separated″ Hart also expressed his limited agreement.So the significance of the debate lies in the better understanding of what sense of separation or connection between law and morality we ought to insist on if rule of law is our common goal.The most enlightening revelation this debate has provided for our country's legal construction is that: when we place emphasis on the substantial justice as our legal end,we could not simply substitute moral logic and standards for legal ones;and when we emphasize independence of law on morality and justice,we should not neglect the cultivation of the morality of law itself.

The Normality of Law: An Introspection of Taking Hart's Theory as the Focus

Autonomy and Openness of Legal System under the Rule of Recognition

An Analysis of the Kelson’s Theory of Law

Contextual Analysis of ‘law’ and Its Discontents——With Particular Reference to Hart and the Concept of Law

What is the Internal Point of View?

Normativity: the Concept of Legality on the Basis of Norm--And on the Relationship of Illegality, Delict and Legality

Legal positivism, conventionalism, and the normativity of law

The Morality of Law: Law,or Morality?

On Command and the Basic Nature of Law

The Theoretical Roots of Marginal Optimization Model and Its Legal Application

Methodology of Legal Language Analysis in Herbert Hart’s Works (1949–1961)

Law's Autonomy, Authority and Legitimate——Criticized Reading on the Concept of Law

Law and Morality: Connection after Being Separated

Law and Moral——Three Argumentations on Legitimacy of Law

Modern Law in the Shifting Paradigms

The Essence of Law in the light of Objective Idealism and Naturalistic Dualism

On Logical Justification of Legal Rationality

Theoretical Examination of "Rationality" of the Legalism

Hegel's Philosophy of Law As Theory of Normative Justice: Interpretation and Restructuring of Honneth on Hegel's Philosophy of Law

Between Principles and Policies: Ronald Dworkin and Constructing an Ideal Jurist

The Truth and Proposition in Law:Review On Patterson's Law and Truth