本文考察英國法理學家Hart關於人們面對社會規則時所抱持的外在觀點與內在觀點的區分。一般而言，前者是觀察者的觀點；後者則是參與者的觀點。然而，Hart的前述區分卻是含混與誤導的。一方面，根據Hart的見解，內在觀點指的是接受社會規則者所抱持的批判反思的態度。但是此種理解之下的內在觀點，卻是被窄化之後的社會化的觀點，同時也排除另外兩種不同類型的參與者觀點：Holmes意義之下的bad man觀點，以及異議者，特別是在公民不服從事例中的異議者。另一方面，Hart區分了外在觀點與極端的外在觀點。Hart認為抱持極端外在觀點的觀察者並不接受規則，只有當他們判斷違反規則的行為將會伴隨著不愉快後果時才會關心社會規則。但是極端的外在觀點很明顯的是參與者的觀點，亦即badman的觀點。造成Hart這些誤解的原因是他關於法律之功能的規範性判斷，以及他關於法律的本體論預設。

This essay scrutinizes Hart’s well-known distinction between external and internal point of view of people toward the social rules. General speaking, the former is the observer’s viewpoint, while the latter is the participant’s viewpoint. Nevertheless, Hart’s distinction is ambiguous and misleading. On the one hand, the internal point of view, according to Hart, refers to the critical reflective attitude of the participants who accept the social rules. However the conception of internal point of view is narrowed to the socialized point of view, it excludes other two kinds of participant’s viewpoint: the bad man’s (Holmes’s version) and the dissenter’s, especially in the cases of civil disobedience. On the other hand, Hart distinguished the external from the extreme external point of view. In Hart’s opinion, the observers keeping the extreme external point of view do not accept the social rules and are only concerned with them when and because they judge that unpleasant consequences are likely to follow deviation. The extreme external point of view is clearly the participant’s viewpoint, namely the bad man’s viewpoint. What caused Hart’s misunderstanding are his normative judgment about law’s function and his ontological assumption about law.