Article
Article name	The Distinction Between Law qnd Morality in Legal Positivism: Socio-Philosophical Dimension
Authors	Smirnova O.V. Candidate of Philosophy, Professor, ovsmirnova35@gmail.com Kononov A.A. Postgraduate Student, Alexey190489@mail.ru
Bibliographic description	Smirnova O. V., Kononov A. A. The Distinction Between Law and Morality in Legal Positivism: Socio- Philosophical Dimension // Humanitarian Vector. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 5. PP. 59–68. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853- 2021-16-5-59-68.
Section	Socium Axiology
UDK	141.7
DOI	10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-5-59-68
Article type
Annotation	The article deals with the main conceptions of the relationship between law and morality in legal positivism. The research relevance is caused by legal positivism which is influential and dynamically developing in both domestic and foreign science. The purpose of the study is to consider the features that describe the positivist approach to the differentiation between legal and moral regulation in the context of the dialectical interaction of individual and social principles in society. It presupposes the establishment of both general and special in legal positivism’s views regarding the interaction of these social regulators. Special attention is paid to the consideration of not only positive aspects of the proposed concepts but also the difficulty that arise within legal positivism. The research methodology is based on the dialectical method, the method of analysis, comparative and historical methods. These methods allow us to analyze in a historical perspective the development of views on the relationship between law and morality in legal positivism, to analyze specific features in the visions of the most influential philosophers of this doctrine, to identify common ideas that unite the philosophers considered. As a result of the conducted research, it is argued that legal positivism is characterized by the correlation of law and morality as sovereign socio-normative systems that closely interact in the structure of society, but do not have the necessary connection that mutually determines their content. The sovereign nature of legal and moral regulation implies the search for models of their interaction. It is important to determine the demarcation line of the spheres and limits of each social regulator. As a result, it is concluded that there are three possible models of this interaction, and the consequences of their implementation in society. In particular, it is determined that law and morality within the structure of society can be either indifferent to each other or have identical content realized through both regulation forms or be in relation to a contradiction adducing to a social conflict.
Key words	relationship between law and morality, legal positivism, pure theory of law, analytical legal philosophy
Article information
References	1. Guseinov, A. A. Morality and law: a demarcation line. Lex Russica, no. 8, pp. 7–22, 2018. (In Rus.). 2. Meleshko, E. D., Verkhovskiy, D. A. Morality and law as socio-cultural regulation. Gumanitarnye vedomosti, TGPU im. L. N. Tolstogo, no. 4, pp. 3–9, 2014. (In Rus.) 3. Khmelevskaya, S. A. Trends of changes in law: social-philosophical analysis. Sociopolitical sciences, no. 4, pp. 56–59, 2016. (In Rus.) 4. Mikhailovskiy, I. V. Essays on the philosophy of law. Tomsk: Publication of the bookstore of V. M. Posokhin, 1914. (In Rus.) 5. Lez’er, V. Conflicts of law and morality in western philosophical tradition and modern criminal justice. Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Jurisprudence, no. 4, pp. 25–36, 2018. (In Rus.) 6. Moreso, J. J. Legal Defeasibility and the Connection between Law and Morality. Web. 07.02.2021. http/ www.academia.edu/1579682/Legal_Defeasibility_and_the_Connection_between_Law_and_Morality. (In Engl.) 7. Bugarcheva, E. A. Right and morality in post-industrial society. The Review of Economy, the Law and Sociology, no. 2, pp. 143–146, 2016. (In Rus.) 8. Razin, A. V. Spiritual and practical reality studies in morals and law. Lex russica, no. 4, pp. 104–112, 2015. (In Rus.) 9. Bix, B. Legal Positivism. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. New-York: Wiley-Blackwell, 2004. (In Engl.) 10. Bentam, I. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. M: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), 1998. (In Rus.) 11. Mill’Dzh. St. Utilitarianism. Rostov n/D: Donskoy publishing house, 2013. (In Rus.) 12. Ossovskaya, M. Morality and legal norms. Pravovedenie, no. 1, pp. 188–195, 2013. (In Rus.) 13. Kel’zen, G. Pure Theory of Law. SPb: Alef-Press, 2015. (In Rus.) 14. Yablokova, N. I. Socio-philosophical ideas in the works of G. L. A. Hart. Gaps in Russian legislation, no. 8, pp. 430–432, 2016. (In Rus.) 15. Didikin, A. B. The formation of analytic tradition in the contemporary philosophy of law. ΣΧΟΛΗ. Ancient Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, no. 4.1, pp. 149–165, 2010. (In Rus.) 16. Hart, G. L. A. The Concept of Law. SPb: Publishing house St. Petersburg State University, 2007. (In Rus.) 17. Ogleznev, V. V., Surovtsev, V. A. Brian Bix and analytical legal philosophy in the USA. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, no. 2, pp. 206–210, 2013. (In Rus.) 18. Raz, J. The Concept of a Legal System. An Introduction to the Theory of Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980. (In Engl.) 19. Raz, J. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. (In Engl.) 20. Bix B. Kelsen, Hart and Legal Normativity. Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, pp. 1–17, 2017. Web. 07.02.2021. http://revus.revues.org/3984. (In Engl.) 21. Bodenkhaimer, E. Modern analytical jurisprudence and the limits of its usefulness. Pravovedenie, no. 4, pp. 148–155, 2013. (In Rus.) 22. Hart, G. L. A. Analytical jurisprudence in mid-twentieth century: a reply to professor Bodenheimer. Pravovedenie, no. 4, pp. 156–177, 2013. (In Rus.) 23. Hart, G. L. A. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Pravovedenie, no. 5, pp. 102–136, 2005. (In Rus.) 24. Fuller, L. L. Positivism and Fidelity to Law ‒ A Reply to Professor Hart. Pravovedenie, no. 6, pp. 124– 159, 2005. (In Rus.) 25. Nekhaev, A. V. Evil law as the pure law: critical remarks on the philosophy of law of H. L. A. Hart. Tomsk State University Journal, no. 440, pp. 72–80, 2019. (In Rus.) 26. Didikin, A. B. Moral neutrality as legal value: critical analysis of philosophical and legal arguments of A. V. Nekhaev. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity, no. 3, pp. 99–103, 2019. (In Rus.) 27. Didikin, A. B. Moral judgments and validity of law. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity, no. 4, pp. 112–116, 2019. (In Rus.) 28. Nekhaev, A. V. Moral passion and legal positivism: replay to Anton Didikin. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 94–111, 2019. (In Rus.)
Full article	The Distinction Between Law qnd Morality in Legal Positivism: Socio-Philosophical Dimension
	0
	18