The Difference Between Natural Law and Legal Positivism

This article is activity to altercate and assay the differences amid two basal principles- accustomed law and acknowledged positivism. According to Hume, there are two realms of animal inquiry, one in the acreage of facts which is anxious with what ‘ is ‘ absolutely the case and the alternative in the acreage of ‘ought’ that is, what care to be the case [1]. Those who accept in the assumption of accustomed law are accustomed as naturalists while those who accept in the assumption of acknowledged authoritativeness or ‘positive law’ are accustomed as positivists. This is a abrupt overview of the two attempt of accustomed law and acknowledged positivism. Natural Law Natural Law started with the age-old Greeks and appropriate that there was a college ability in ascendancy of animal existence. Accustomed law deals with the aggregate of law and behavior and is sourced from religion, culture, and reason. It is the agency by which animal beings can rationally adviser themselves to their acceptable and it is based on the anatomy of absoluteness itself. All animal beings acquire a basal ability of the attempt of accustomed law. Naturalists accept ‘an biased law is not a law’. Doherty said ‘One of the classical theories of accustomed law is that there are assertive attempt of animal conduct, apprehension analysis by animal reason, with which counterfeit laws charge accommodate if it is to be valid’ [2] Accustomed law is what ‘ought’ to be. Some accustomed law thinkers were Hobbes, Locke, Finnis, Fuller, and Aquinas. Aquinas set the arrangement of avant-garde accustomed law thinking. He disconnected law into four categories-eternal law, all-powerful law, accustomed law, and animal law. The aboriginal axiom of the accustomed law, according to Aquinas, is acute to do acceptable and abstain evil. ‘Aquinas believed that animal laws that do not accord to the accustomed law are corruptions of law. These are animal laws that abridgement the appearance of law that binds moral conscience’ [3]. The appellation ‘natural law’ is cryptic in that it refers to a blazon of moral approach as able-bodied as a acknowledged theory. Legal Positivism Legal authoritativeness has to do with the break of laws and morals. ‘Legal authoritativeness is a aesthetics of law that emphasizes the accustomed attributes of law that it is socially constructed. According to acknowledged positivism, ‘law is alike with complete norms, that is, norms fabricated by the administrator or advised as accustomed law or case law’ [4] Some positivists were Bentham, Austin, Hart, and Kelsen and they all had altered theories. Bentham- utility, Austin- commands, Hart- rules, Kelsen- norms. Acknowledged authoritativeness is of the appearance that chastity is extraneous to the identification of what is accurate law. Bentham referred to accustomed law is ‘nonsense on stilts’. He said the analysis of acceptable or angry in an act is its account and that the ‘greatest beatitude of the greatest number’ is the amusing analysis of what is moral conduct. Austin’s accurate approach of law is generally alleged the ‘command theory’ The three basal credibility of Austin’s approach were- the law is a command issued by the uncommanded commander, the commands are backed by threats and a complete is one who is frequently obeyed. Kelsen was of the appearance that the alone law is complete law, which is the artefact of the will of the people, there are no accustomed laws, therefore. Positivists accept that law is affiliated with sovereignty. ‘According to Bentham and Austin, the law is a abnormality of ample societies with a sovereign: a belted being or accumulation who accept complete and complete de facto ability –they are obeyed by all or best others but do not themselves analogously obey anyone else’ [5] Positivists say ‘ought’ is important but should be abstracted and one should abstain aggravating to acquire an care from an is. Accustomed attorneys accept that law is necessarily affiliated to morality, admitting acknowledged positivists abjure that. This is the above aberration amid positivist and accustomed law thinkers. Natural law is the aggregate of laws and behavior while acknowledged authoritativeness is the break of laws and morals. Acknowledged authoritativeness declares that chastity is extraneous to the identification of what is accurate law and that the belief for the authority of a acknowledged aphorism of law in a association is that it has the accreditation of the complete and will be activated by the complete and its agents. Raz, a positivist, declared that ‘the authority of a law can never depend on its morality’ [6] Positive law or authoritativeness is altered from accustomed law because ‘ it calls for a assertive admeasurement of regularity of acknowledgment for after this feature, it would hardly be advantaged to rank as law at all. A accustomed law, on the alternative hand, may still be captivated to be accurate alike if it is never or hardly alike observed. [7] Acknowledged authoritativeness will alone assignment in a association breadth it is broadly accepted. Hart appropriate that the acknowledged arrangement is a ‘closed’ analytic arrangement breadth decisions may be deduced by logic. For accustomed lawyers- laws will be about correct. For positivists- the moral aspect is a amusing accepted for bodies to aspire to. Another above aberration amid the assumption of accustomed law and the assumption of acknowledged authoritativeness is that accustomed law is not complete by animal beings while acknowledged authoritativeness is complete by animal beings through the accompaniment draws from assembly and the action of lawmaking. There are two aspects, therefore, that accent the adverse amid authoritativeness in its caricatured anatomy and accustomed law theories. First, the law is alone the apriorism of the acknowledged degree (including legislators). This deprives the law of any affected claims of built-in chastity and ensures the individual’s appropriate to his own censor while reserving the acknowledged system’s appropriate to abuse him for transgressing. Secondly, it allows for absolute statements about the attributes of accurate law which almost the lawyers’ experience. [8] Accustomed law is accepted while acknowledged authoritativeness consists of the accounting rules and regulations by the government- codes, acts. Another acumen is that accustomed law is ‘the adjustment of brotherhood (literally, the adjustment of active together)’ [9] - the altitude of brotherhood are universal. Acknowledged authoritativeness on the alternative duke is specific to a accurate area. ‘While authoritativeness states that the abstraction of law is artlessly what the acknowledged arrangement in a accustomed association recognizes as law, acclimatization considers law to be an ideal, frequently aggregate by animal societies’ [10] Accustomed law follows a test. If it fails the moral test, again it is not acceptable law. Authoritativeness doesn’t chase that test. Some laws may abridgement in behavior but still be ‘good’ law. Despite the distinctions amid accustomed law and acknowledged positivism, there is a all-important affiliation amid the two principles. Accustomed law flows into acknowledged authoritativeness alongside because it is absurd to accept a acknowledged arrangement after allegiance to the aphorism of law and academic justice. ‘The affiliation amid law and analytical chastity is all-important for that it is not contingent. It applies to every law and every acknowledged system. The proposed estimation of every law in every acknowledged arrangement can calmly be challenged on the arena that it is not about defensible, whether the claiming succeeds or fails in a accurate instance’ [11]. Any complete law that conflicts with accustomed law is not absolutely law at all. As a aftereffect of this, there is no moral or acknowledged obligation to obey it. Bodies will not chase a law that they anticipate is about repulsive. A aphorism is accurately accurate if there’s a moral appropriate to accomplish it. If bodies do not accept behavior or reason, it will be absolutely adamantine to accept a acknowledged system. Radbruch said ‘law could not be accurately accurate until it had anesthetized the tests independent in the academic belief of acknowledged authority of the arrangement and did not abjure basal attempt of morality’ [12]. Accustomed law and acknowledged authoritativeness are assuredly intertwined and inter-related. ‘The ethics of fairness, equity, justice, honesty, humanity, dignity, prudence, abnegation from abandon and a host of alternative ethics that cabal to cooperation and coexistence comedy a arresting role in the law alike back they are not congenital in any academic antecedent of law. [13] In conclusion, ’in adjustment to apperceive what your acknowledged rights are, you charge to attending at what laws your association has. In adjustment to apperceive what your moral rights are, you charge to amount out what is accurate morality. ’ [14] Footnotes: 1, 2 Dennis Lloyd The Idea Of Law(1964)p. 80 Michael Doherty Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2004)p. 132 3 Ibid p. 151 UP:05/11/2012-03:15:35 WM:05/11/2012-03:15:38 M:IA120-3-FY A:12a1 R:1204531 C:78D1638A2748CDB50B5907EB2217613C84694D9B 4, 5 www. iep. utm. edu/legalpos/ [April 17 2001][accessed 4th November 2012] Plato. standford. edu/entries/legal-positivism/ [2003][accessed 4th November 2012] 6 Joseph Raz The Authority Of Law: Essays On Law And Morality(1979)p. 47 UP:05/11/2012-03:15:35 WM:05/11/2012-03:15:38 M:IA120-3-FY A:12a1 R:1204531 C:78D1638A2748CDB50B5907EB2217613C84694D9B 7, 8 Dennis Lloyd The Idea of Law(1964)p. 97 Michael Doherty Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2003)p. 155 9 http://users. ugent. e/frvandun/Texts [no date][accessed 4th November 2012] 10 Michael Doherty Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2003)p. 155 UP:05/11/2012-03:15:35 WM:05/11/2012-03:15:38 M:IA120-3-FY A:12a1 R:1204531 C:78D1638A2748CDB50B5907EB2217613C84694D9B 11, 12 Users. ox. ac. uk/~all. s0079/positivism2. pdf [no date][accessed 4th November 2012] Michael Doherty Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2003)p. 157 13 Ibid. P. 39 14 Michael Doherty Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2004)p. 39 UP:05/11/2012-03:15:35 WM:05/11/2012-03:15:38 M:IA120-3-FY A:12a1 R:1204531 C:78D1638A2748CDB50B5907EB2217613C84694D9B Bibliography: Books Lloyd, Dennis, The Idea Of Law(1967) Raz, Joseph, The Authority Of Law: Essays on Law And Morality(1979) Doherty, Michael, Jurisprudence: The Aesthetics Of Law(Third Edition)(2003,2004) Internet Sources www. iep. utm. edu/legalpos/ [April 17 2001][accessed 4th November 2012] Plato. standford. edu/entries/legal-positivism/ [2003][accessed 4th November 2012] http://users. ugent. be/frvandun/Texts [no date][accessed 4th November 2012] Users. ox. ac. uk/~all. s0079/positivism2. pdf [no date][accessed 4th November 2012]

Order a unique copy of this paper

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
Top Academic Writers Ready to Help
with Your Research Proposal
Live Chat+1(978) 822-0999EmailWhatsApp

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code COURSEGUY