道德立法論與傷害原則之爭議－重新審視德夫林與赫特的辯論

一場知名的辯論發生於1960年代的英國，德夫林（Patrick Devlin）法官支持道德立法論並反對傷害原則，但法律學者赫特（H. L. A. Hart）則堅決支持某種版本的傷害原則並反對道德立法論。這場辯論還在持續中，而且近年不少法律哲學家（如梅菲（Jeffrie Murphy））對傷害原則提出不少質疑。本研究將重新審視這場辯論，透過重新發掘德夫林較受忽略的論點和一些當代的哲學討論，本研究論證在道德立法論與傷害原則的辯論中，稍微占上風的應該是道德立法論。

In the 1960s, Patrick Devlin and H. L. A. Hart famously debated the legal enforcement of morality (legal moralism), marking the start of subsequent debates between advocates of the harm principle and defenders of legal moralism. In the previous two decades, numerous scholars have revisited the Hart-Devlin debate, and some liberals, such as Jeffrie Murphy, have even come to doubt the harm principle. On the basis of the neglected arguments of Devlin and the work of contemporary philosophers, I argue that the application of some form of legal moralism provides slight advantages over the application of the harm principle.