現代法哲學에 나타난 存在와 當爲의 諸槪念

Abstract

The relationship between 'Is' and 'Ought' is one of the fundamental problems in legalphilosophy. This study deals with several articles in modern legalphilosophy. A: Dualism of 'Is' and 'Ought' on the basis of Kelsen's pure theory of law and Klug's theory. B: Neo-naturallaw (Heinrich Rommen) C: Phenomenology of legalphilosophy (Adolf Reinach) D: Sociology of Law, especially Scandinavian legalrealism (Karl Olivecrona, Alf Ross) Through our research, we found that: Kelsen argues that 'Is' and 'Ought' are dual in the according to 'the Pure Theory of Law'. For the spheres of 'Is' and 'Ought' are not equal, we can't infer 'Ought' from 'Is'. On the other hand, monists assert that 'Ought' can stem from 'Is'. I think that the relationship of 'Is' and 'Ought' should not be treated only logically or epistemologically. This relationship is to be understood ontologically: in all the relations of social elements. Therefore, the validity and effectiveness of law may be influenced by the relationship between 'Is' and 'Ought'.;存在와 當爲의 問題가 法哲學에 있어서 根本問題인 것은 누구도 否認할 수 없다. 本 論文은 이러한 法哲學上의 根本問題를 論함에 있어, 現代라는 視覺에 맞추어 諸法哲學的 論議를 考察하여 봄으로써, (新칸트的 二元論의 立場에서는 Kelsen의 純粹法, 自然法的인 論義, 現象學的 法哲學과 法社會學) 存在와 當爲의 關係를 把握하려고 한다. 그러나 單純한 存在와 當爲의 槪念보다는, 存在와 當爲의 關係에 따라, 法의 妥當性과 實效性, 그리고 그 位値가 어떠한가, 다시 말하여 妥當性과 實效性을 갖는 法의 位置지움에 存在와 當爲를 어떻게 把握하는 것이 가장 바람직할 것인가를 추구하고자 試圖해 보았다.