当代法律实证主义者主张,法律的规范性是法理论需要说明的首要议题。同时,他们坚持对法律规范性要求的识别标准,完全是由社会事实所决定。这就是社会事实命题。然而,将法律视为规范性实践,意味着法律是能够向人们提供行动理由的事实。对这种事实给予充分理解,一方面必须说明它是如何与某些深层价值保持关联的,另一方面必须说明在每个具体情境下,它是如何对具体的行动给予指引的。德沃金所提炼的理论争议显示出,实证主义无法确保由社会事实确定的法律规范,在错综复杂的法律实践中,始终和深层价值保持必要的关联。而实证主义要避免陷入这种争议,对法律规范性的说明就只能停留在抽象、一般的层面上,这又导致法律的规范性变得空洞。这说明,法律实证主义无法维护社会事实命题。法理论必须在一个基本的实践哲学框架下才能完成自己的使命。 Contemporary legal positivists argue that the normative nature of law is the primary topic that needs to be elucidated in the theory of law. At the same time, their adherence to the criterion of legal normativeness is entirely determined by social facts. This is the social fact proposition. However, treating law as a normative practice means that law is a fact that gives people reason to act. To fully understand this fact, one must show how it is associated with some deep values ​​and, on the other hand, how it can guide specific actions in each specific situation. Dworkin’s theoretical controversy shows that positivism can not ensure the legal norms established by social facts and always maintains the necessary connection with deep values ​​in the complicated legal practice. The positivism to avoid falling into this controversy, the legal normative description can only stay at the abstract, general level, which in turn led to legal norms become empty. This shows that legal positivism can not maintain the social reality proposition. The theory of law must be completed under the framework of a basic philosophy of practice.