Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.2
Summary
TLDRDans cette vidéo, Niku explore le deuxième chapitre de la 'Théorie pure du droit' de Hans Kelsen, qui examine la distinction entre droit et morale. Kelsen affirme que pour qu'une théorie juridique soit pure, elle doit être séparée des sciences naturelles et de la morale. Bien que droit et morale soient tous deux des systèmes normatifs, leur différence réside dans leurs mécanismes : le droit s'impose par la coercition, tandis que la morale s'appuie sur l'approbation sociale. Kelsen critique l'idée de lier droit et morale, car cela mène à des jugements subjectifs et problématiques.
Takeaways
- 📘 Kelsen sépare la science du droit des sciences naturelles et de la morale pour créer une théorie pure du droit.
- ⚖️ Le droit et la morale sont tous deux des systèmes de normes, mais ils diffèrent dans leur méthode et leur but.
- 👥 La morale est diffusée dans la société et régulée par l'approbation sociale, tandis que le droit est centralisé et appliqué par la coercition.
- 📝 Les normes juridiques sont souvent imposées par la violence, alors que les normes morales sont maintenues par la pression sociale.
- 🔍 Kelsen soutient que pour comprendre scientifiquement le droit, il est essentiel de ne pas le juger à l'aune de la morale, car la morale est trop subjective et relative.
- 🌍 Le droit peut prétendre à une certaine universalité dans ses limites géographiques, tandis que la morale est plus variable d'une culture à l'autre.
- ⛔ Kelsen met en garde contre la confusion entre droit et morale, car cela peut justifier des interventions immorales ou violentes au nom de la justice morale.
- 💡 Le but du théoricien du droit est d'observer et de décrire le système juridique de manière objective, sans jugement moral.
- 🔗 Kelsen insiste sur l'idée que la validité d'une loi ne doit pas être remise en question en fonction de sa moralité, car ce sont deux critères différents.
- 🧐 En séparant la morale du droit, Kelsen cherche à permettre une analyse plus critique et objective des systèmes juridiques, sans biais moral.
Q & A
Quelle est la distinction principale que fait Carlson entre la loi et la science naturelle?
-Carlson distingue la loi en tant que science des normes, par opposition aux sciences naturelles, qui traitent de la nature. Pour lui, la loi et la science naturelle sont deux domaines séparés.
Comment Carlson différencie-t-il la loi de la morale dans son approche?
-Carlson distingue la loi de la morale en affirmant que les deux sont des systèmes de normes, mais que la loi est centralisée et coercitive, tandis que la morale est décentralisée et repose sur l'approbation ou la désapprobation sociale.
Pourquoi Carlson insiste-t-il sur la nécessité de séparer la loi de la morale?
-Carlson estime qu'il est essentiel de séparer la loi de la morale pour maintenir une théorie juridique pure et scientifique. Selon lui, la morale est trop relative et subjective pour être utilisée comme base de jugement dans le droit.
Quelle différence clé identifie Carlson entre les normes juridiques et morales?
-La différence clé identifiée par Carlson est que la loi est imposée par la coercition, souvent avec la force ou la violence, tandis que la morale est maintenue par l'approbation ou la désapprobation sociale.
Pourquoi Carlson rejette-t-il l'idée que la paix soit une valeur morale universelle?
-Carlson rejette l'idée que la paix soit une valeur morale universelle en citant des exemples historiques où la paix n'était pas considérée comme un objectif ultime, comme dans certains cas où la violence était jugée justifiée.
Selon Carlson, quel est le danger d'intégrer la morale dans le droit?
-Carlson affirme que l'intégration de la morale dans le droit peut être dangereuse car cela peut justifier des interventions étrangères sur des bases morales et rendre les citoyens aveugles aux aspects coercitifs de leur propre système juridique.
Comment Carlson décrit-il l'objectif de la science juridique en ce qui concerne la loi?
-Carlson soutient que l'objectif de la science juridique est de décrire la loi de manière objective, sans porter de jugements de valeur, afin de mieux comprendre le système juridique.
Qu'est-ce que Carlson entend par 'validité interne' de la loi?
-Carlson se réfère à la validité interne de la loi en disant qu'une loi reste valide selon ses propres critères internes, et non en fonction de considérations morales externes.
Quelle est la position de Carlson sur l'application des droits de l'homme dans le contexte du droit international?
-Carlson critique l'utilisation des droits de l'homme pour justifier des interventions internationales, arguant que moraliser le droit peut conduire à des actions immorales, comme l'agression contre d'autres pays.
Pourquoi Carlson pense-t-il qu'une approche positiviste du droit est bénéfique pour la critique du système juridique?
-Carlson estime qu'une approche positiviste permet de voir le droit pour ce qu'il est, sans le juger moralement, ce qui offre la possibilité d'une critique plus claire et plus objective du système juridique.
Outlines
📘 Introduction à la théorie pure du droit de Kelsen
Dans ce premier paragraphe, Niku introduit le sujet du chapitre deux du livre *Pure Theory of Law* de Kelsen. Kelsen établit une distinction entre la science du droit et les sciences naturelles, ainsi qu'entre le droit et la morale. Le droit est vu comme un ensemble de normes distinct des sciences naturelles et de la morale. Ce chapitre explore plus en détail les différences entre les normes juridiques et morales, et pourquoi il est crucial, selon Kelsen, de les maintenir séparées pour une théorie juridique 'pure'.
⚖️ La différence fondamentale entre droit et morale
Kelsen reconnaît des similitudes entre le droit et la morale, notamment dans leur rôle de régulation des comportements humains. Cependant, la distinction essentielle réside dans leur mode d'application. Le droit est centralisé et appliqué par la coercition, tandis que la morale est décentralisée et régulée par l'approbation ou la désapprobation sociale. Kelsen insiste sur l'importance de ne pas confondre ces deux systèmes de normes pour éviter des problèmes conceptuels et pratiques.
🔍 La relativité de la morale et la validité du droit
Kelsen souligne que la morale ne peut prétendre à l'universalité contrairement au droit, qui peut en théorie aspirer à une forme d'universalité. La morale étant trop relative et subjective, elle ne peut être un critère pour juger de la validité d'une norme juridique. Kelsen donne l'exemple de la paix, souvent considérée comme une valeur morale universelle, mais qui, selon lui, n'est pas une valeur absolue. En conséquence, il affirme que les lois ne devraient pas être jugées selon des critères moraux.
🧐 Le point de vue du théoricien du droit
Kelsen distingue entre l'observation de l'intérieur et l'observation de l'extérieur du système juridique. Le théoricien du droit observe le droit de manière descriptive et objective, sans porter de jugement de valeur. Selon Kelsen, la validité d'une loi ne doit pas être remise en question par la morale car cela reviendrait à comparer deux systèmes de normes différents. La séparation entre droit et morale permet une meilleure compréhension scientifique du droit.
⚠️ Les dangers de moraliser le droit
Kelsen met en garde contre les dangers de moraliser le droit, car cela peut justifier des interventions internationales sous prétexte que certaines lois étrangères sont immorales. Il souligne également que considérer le droit comme moral empêche une critique objective du système juridique en place. Une approche positiviste permet de reconnaître la validité des lois tout en restant critique, ce qui ouvre la voie à des réformes sans pour autant confondre validité et moralité.
🔬 L'approche scientifique de Kelsen
Ce dernier paragraphe souligne l'importance pour Kelsen de garder une approche scientifique du droit, séparée de la morale. Il insiste sur le fait que cette séparation n'est pas une carte blanche pour agir de manière immorale, mais plutôt une méthode rigoureuse pour observer et critiquer le droit de manière objective. Le prochain chapitre abordera la relation entre le droit et la science, qui sera explorée dans la prochaine vidéo.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Normes juridiques
💡Normes morales
💡Coercition
💡Relativité morale
💡Système juridique centralisé
💡Validité du droit
💡Positivisme juridique
💡Observation de second ordre
💡Droit international public
💡Science du droit
Highlights
Carlson separates the science of law from Natural Sciences and morality, aiming for a 'pure theory of law.'
Both law and morality are systems of norms but differ in how they regulate behavior and enforce compliance.
Law is centralized and enforced through coercion, whereas morality is decentralized and relies on social approval or disapproval.
Carlson argues that law and morality should be kept separate to avoid conceptual confusion in legal theory.
The key distinction is in how law and morality operate: law through violence and coercion, morality through societal esteem.
International law is an exception to Carlson's centralized concept of law, which he claims makes it more akin to 'international morals.'
Carlson emphasizes that moral norms are too relative to be the basis of legal judgment or law, lacking scientific objectivity.
Peace, often considered a universal moral value, is not truly universal according to Carlson, using examples like religious conflicts.
For Carlson, law should still strive toward 'the good,' but morality is too subjective to serve as a foundation for legal norms.
A law is valid by its own internal metrics and should not be judged based on external moral values.
Carlson warns that moralizing over the law can lead to dangerous political interventions and a lack of critical perspective on one’s own legal system.
By separating law from morality, Carlson argues that one can maintain a more critical stance on the legal system.
Kelson takes an academic, scientific approach to law, striving for empirical rigor and objectivity in his theory.
Morality, for Carlson, lacks the scientific clarity needed for a rigorous analysis of law, supporting his positivist approach.
The next chapter, focusing on law and science, delves deeper into the empirical aspects of legal theory, building on the previous discussion of law and morality.
Transcripts
welcome to the undisciplined reading
series it's me niku and we're still
doing Carlson's a pure theory of Law and
today we're talking about chapter two
law and morality low on morals so we saw
in the first chapter that Carlson
separates
the science of law as the science of
norms as opposed to the Natural Science
right or nature
he makes this distinction between law
and the Natural Sciences and then he
also makes a distinction between
law and morality so the moral still
being
uh
social system of norms but that it's
different from
the legal system this is important for
calcium for illegal Theory to be pure it
has to be separated from the Natural
Sciences and it has to be separated from
ethics or morality
and in this chapter he goes in the
deeper detail exactly what the
difference between legal Norms are and
moral Norms are and why it's important
for a legal Theory to keep these two
separate so we know from the first
chapter that Carlson definitely
recognizes some overlap or similarity
between law and morality
their norms
he says they regulate both
internal Behavior thought processes or
behavior that affects only an individual
as well as external Behavior behavior
that
affects other people or Society in the
bigger sense he says both law and
morality
regulate how
people act
in accordance with or counter to their
own inclinations
you know you're more likely
to follow a rule hopefully than not to
follow it I think
a kind of a lumanian way to phrase this
would be to say that
both systems of norms attempt to make
certain patterns of behavior more
probable
there's also
a similarity between law and morality
and how they are formed their Norms both
are formed by the will of the
individuals
as well as a kind of a custom you know
we saw that law arises through customer
morality too it's
always has a past it's a history it's
how we do things right so they're also
similar in how they come about
so then the question becomes apparent so
if they're
both Norms that try to regulate
individual Behavior
and make certain acts more probable or
patterns more probable
what are their differences
one difference is that
Carlson says that
the legal order is usually centralized
where the moral order is not it's
dispersed across Society there isn't one
body that enforces morality right
as opposed to the law
he he says very primitive forms of law
operate in this way but not modern law
with the exception perhaps he says of
public international law
and that's why he says
it
wouldn't be completely wrong to call
International or International morals
instead because international law does
not fit within the centralized
element of
his definition of law of a legal system
I mean that's that's debatable right
it's a question is he
good
interpreting the facts to fit his theory
perhaps a little bit I think
um
but nevertheless it is what it is
you can make up your own mind about that
a more important difference between law
and morality is not
in what they command or what they do
but in how they do it
importantly this means that
morality the how of morality how it
enforces itself
is through
social approval or disapproval
you have
esteem or this esteem in society
law on the other hand as we saw in
chapter one
works with coercion
um
you know it's easy to imagine there are
many laws that you can break that does
not affect your esteem in society it
might even increase it if you break the
law under certain conditions
but law enforces itself through coercion
through violence that's its mechanism
so we see clearly that calcium makes a
hard distinction between
law and morality
and he says that we should not confuse
these two it causes
conceptual problems
so
then the question becomes
what should or what is in his opinion
the relationship between law and
morality then
despite their their shared form
normative form
their content
and their method is different
so why for calcium is it important to
distinguish law and morality
he says that what's important is and we
said in chapter one we refer to the
transcendental but
morality
can never have a claim to universality
law
theoretically could
although in practice we know we have
different jurisdictions and law is
willing to
border itself within that
and at least claim a universality within
those borders but morality tends not to
do that
and the problem is if we start making
legal judgment based on morality
the question very quickly becomes whose
morality the law we can point to
morality
is too relative
it is
for calcium
not a
scientifically hard enough object I
think
to make that the basis of
judgment or the basis of
of law legal judgment you know he tries
to
find an example of a of a value a moral
value that would count as universal
and
you know he can't even
find that the closest he gets is perhaps
peace
is is a universal value but then he says
but no uh
history of History the modern society is
full of examples of
people who
did not hold peace to be the highest
value there are situations in which
violence
would be justified although peace would
be uh something to strive for it's not
ultimate it's not Universal he uses the
example
from
the quote from Jesus who says that I did
not come to the world to bring peace I
came here to bring division
I come here to bring the sword I come
here to
bring war between Father and Son
uh that's also a favorite quote of Zizek
so he says
it's not obvious that peace is a
universal value so in this sense because
of the relativity of morals
it is scientifically meaningless
to say that the law ought to be moral
we would never agree on that anyway
so
as you can guess this means that morals
are not a factor in whether a law or a
legal Norm is valid or not
but he qualifies this he says that
this does not mean that
the law and its Norms fall outside of
when he calls the good
that
law should still
strive towards the good
but if we put it in this
more specific sense of
morality or ethics
it's too subjective
to meaningfully strive towards that and
then I think
an important nuance
here that
is not always
represents it well enough I think
is this distinction between if we talk
about
kind of the low from the inside if I can
put it that way
and then the law is observed from
outside by the
the legal theorist or the legal
scientist
not the practitioner
who creates and interprets law but the
one who looks at the whole system
which is sort of what we're doing here
and what Kelson did obviously Carlson
has this strong drive to be
objective
scientific empirical
uh which
you know that's open for a whole bag of
critique by itself but let's put that to
the side for now but he says that if we
study the law
academically from the outside
it's not the
purpose of the legal theorist or the
legal Sciences to
approve or disapprove of
a particular law
the purpose is to describe it right
there shouldn't be a value judgment in
a purely descriptive exercise meant for
understanding the system better
and through
the internal logic of the law a law
remains valid only by its own metrics
measuring it from the outside
against morals
cannot invalidate a law the immorality
of the law cannot invalidate it
we're we're comparing
different
criteria
uh we're comparing apples and oranges
here
and then Carlson
justifies this or he goes further by
sort of dabbling
within the ethical trying to make
ethical Arguments for separating law and
morality he says out of a kind of a
political point of view he says it seems
that
the laws of One's Own country always
seem to be moral to you while the laws
of another country seem to be immoral to
you and that should already signal to
you that something is amiss
and points to the relativity of law so
insisting that laws have to be moral or
immoral
justifies
in some cases justifies intervention in
a foreign country think of how human
rights have been instrumentalized in
that way you know we're going to
intervene in another country because
they're not applying
human rights law they're not going about
with the law in a moral way
and that thus we have a legal
justification to
attack them
also the value of Peace being put to the
side there
so he says that moralizing over the law
can be dangerous it can have immoral
effects
and secondly he says that by insisting
on the morality
of the legal system
it makes one uncritical of the of the
legal system that you're living under if
you assume that it's morally justifiable
you are
subscribing to this coercive natural
order
and there's a
there's a danger in that
having a pure positivistic theory of the
law
makes you able to see the law for what
it is
and you can then
without arguing over whether it's valid
or invalid you can be more critical
about it accepting that it's valid
and
do something about that
rather than this
uncritical acceptance of
this violently imposed normative order
so that's basically it for this chapter
it's quite a short one I think it's the
shortest one in the book so this video
is also a bit shorter but
it's also interesting because this idea
apart from the Goon Norm thing this
positivist idea that law and morality is
separate we see that he does not pay
that much attention the next chapter on
Law and science is actually
significantly longer that we'll do in
the next video
but I think it's important
not to be too reductive about this
law and morality relationship and
positivism or in Kelson
I think it's a little bit more subtle a
little bit more nuanced
I think
what it's easy to say that
law and morality should not be mixed up
but I think what people perhaps Miss
sometimes is that we're not talking
about
separating it
from only Within
the legal system whether you're a lawyer
or a a judge or a legislator whatever
and that it gives you carte blanche to
be immoral that's not the point what is
more
important or more interesting here
is
keeping in mind that Carlson is writing
this as an academic
who takes the scientific rigor of what
he's doing very seriously
and is trying to make a
a cold
pure
scientific theory of law
and that morality is not a scientific
enough concept for him in describing the
law and that this is not
the split between law and morality is
not only within the legal system but
it's from this outside position
that Kelson is doing it from where the
split becomes important so from the
second order observation if I can put it
that way and I think within the
framework of what he's
writing and what he's trying to do and
his way of thinking
it makes sense
the point is that we can of course also
do our second order observation of what
Carlson is doing and
criticize his assumptions which
hopefully we'll get to later but
anyway that's chapter two of a pure
theory of law
uh next video we'll be doing chapter
three
which deals with law and science
thank you
I hope this was helpful and have a nice
day
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.1
Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law Ch.3
Une avocate au Barreau de Toulon nous parle du droit des animaux
CEJM - Th5 Chap4 : L'environnement juridique du salarié
Les Privilèges (généraux, mobiliers et immobiliers) : [Droit des sûretés]
Le droit d'auteur - EDUCATION MUSICALE
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)