From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!canrem!dosgate![al.chan@canrem.uucp] Tue Feb 11 15:25:54 EST 1992
Article 3600 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uunet.ca!canrem!dosgate![al.chan@canrem.uucp]
>From: al.chan@canrem.uucp (al chan)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: hart and fuller
Message-ID: <1992Feb8.1464.3624@dosgate>
Date: 8 Feb 92 23:53:51 GMT
Reply-To: "al chan" <al.chan@canrem.uucp>
Distribution: comp
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Lines: 11


      I've just read an article by Fuller and by Hart, it seems that
Fuller critizes Hart's defence of legal positivism is a defence of the
value of order pure and simple instead of the value of good or just
order which Fuller seems concerned to defend.  Some thinks that in
Hart's point of view, Fuller is merely shows the confusion that results
from blurring the distinction between what law is and what law ought to
be.  I don't really see how this could be so!!  Any suggestions???
--
Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host


