Hart's Theory Of Coercive Orders

1077 Words 5 Pages
Topic One
In the Concept of Law, Hart attempts to depict one of the differing viewpoints to his own beliefs of positivism; this one being Austen’s of which he calls the theory of coercive orders. Essentially, the theory of coercive orders is when a political superior commands a political inferior with the backing of a threat. In what Hart details as a valid legal system, the criminal statute may be construed as a threat, however, the important difference between that and coercive orders is that the ‘threat’ of not behaving correctly in accordance with the rules applies to the entirety of the jurisdiction, not merely the underlings. It is that rational that also leads Hart to take issue to the idea of laws being commands that apply only to the
…show more content…
This gunman situation is not ideal due to several reasons, the main rational that Hart provides is that there is a difference between having an obligation to do something, and being obliged. In a gunman situation, the individual is obliged to hand over the money as out of fear for the consequences, not out of duty or ethics. Moreover, “the statement that a person was obliged to obey someone is […] psychological […] referring to the beliefs and motives with which an action was done”. On the other hand, if someone has an obligation to do something there is no pretext causing the assumption that the action was completed, merely an independent variable which is commensurable to having a …show more content…
He stated: “[a] mere respect for constituted authority must not be confused with fidelity to law”. This is meant in a way that demonstrates the fierce divide between recognizing that a law exists and is valid versus the instinct some individuals have to be abiding by morally acceptable laws. For example, if one were to take the laws at face value during times of severe injustice to one party that is legally acceptable a citizen would just have to accept it as it is. However, the solution to this critique is to simply note that there is a difference between morality and ethics. Ethically, a judge can rule against a law, or lawyers can appeal a law and have it overturned in the Supreme Court. These changes are not made from a moral centre, but an ethical inclination. Having the law be amoral does not mean that it is an immovable

Related Documents

Related Topics