Jurisprudence- Critical Discussion of the Speluncean Explorers

I think a Natural Law School follower would have found the men not guilty of murder. Again this is based upon the reading, back story,

The trial of Columbus versus the state took place is took place and was a grueling debate of whether or not Columbus was to be sentenced for the crimes that were committed or not to be. As the prosecution continued to charge Columbus the defence continually discredited there arguement because of how they evidently had no proof that Columbus himself was responsible for the crimes committed. At first this made it very interesting as the trail was not just a push over. However very quickly it became boring a repetitive for the jury to watch. Then with the constant yelling of objection it became painstaking long to watch as it seemed like there wasn't even a trail going on. In addition to that the fifteen minute long answer by one of the witnesses was extremely drawn out seeing as no new information was presented except for at the start because of how the witness refused to give a yes or no answer and kept repeating her statement. Although the rest of the trail was pretty well done. Both side of the trail were very well prepared making for the most part an eventful fun to watch. The constant screaming between mostly Mason and James was to say the least very funny and especially with the constant belittlement of James. The reason I voted the way I did was because of how, like I stated before, the evidence brought against Columbus was all

Before 1453, Europe was in a period of time often referred to as the Dark ages. Critics claim that they had little access to any kind of trade, wealth or ideas that traveled along the Silk Roads. Meaning that the Europeans economy was based largely off of agriculture and they lived very difficult lives in poverty. This was until daring and courageous men decided to pull Europe out of the Dark ages and into the Renaissance (A Golden Age). The many voyages of European explorers and conquistadors are what brought Europe into what would become known as The Age of Exploration. This connected Europe to trade and cultural ideas along the east. Although the Europeans and conquistadors did conquer the natives and spread the base of slavery, these men did bring new ideas, technology, science and culture that ultimately result in a huge impact on history.

The introduction of the spanish discoverers revealed how the native americans’ lives would be changed due to enslavement, forced religion, and the destruction of their homes. If it wasn’t for the story of Marco Polo “visiting” the Indies describing the place as a heaven on earth, the place were incredible riches are stored, where there are villages of gold, then there would never have been an interest in finding a new trade route. Which never would have brought about the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, it also would have never brought the hardships, tragedy, and utter genocide of the native americans.

Legal positivism is generally based on the principle that Law and morality is distinct and that the validity of a rule depends more on its sources, while Natural law would be more inclined to favour features of reasonableness and the link between morality and law. There are two predominant groups of legal theorists being, Natural law theorists and Positive law theorists, John Austin and HLA Hart

European explorers first landed on the shores of what would later become North America more than 500 years ago. Not long after the first explorers had entered the "New World" they found out that they were not alone on this new frontier. Their neighbors in this new land were the Native Americans who had been there for centuries, virtually unaware of life outside the continent. Thus began an inconsistent and often times unstable relationship between the European settlers and the North American Indians. Two nations who had particularly interesting relationships with the Native Americans were the British and the French, both of whom took different approaches to their relations with the Indians economically as well

4. In this case law and morality are intertwined. The law says that it is wrong to kill someone but morals dictate that their was no other way unless the murder happened. One may argue that Dudley and Stephen were not in the wrong or vice-versa. In my eyes though the pair was in the wrong. They killed and eat someone who wanted to live despite his I'll state. Now, if Brooks had lost and sacrificed his body as a meal then that would be a different story. It still would be a murder but all three members agreed to it. This scenario did not occur and so the pair of Dudley and Stephen are morally wrong for committing

There are many ways to decide what makes a man guilty. In an ethical sense, there is more to guilt than just committing the crime. In Charles Brockden Browns’ Wieland, the reader is presented with a moral dilemma: is Theodore Wieland guilty of murdering his wife and children, even though he claims that the command came from God, or is Carwin guilty because of his history of using persuasive voices, even though his role in the Wieland family’s murder is questionable? To answer these questions, one must consider what determines guilt, such as responsibility, motives, consequences, and the act itself. No matter which view is taken on what determines a man’s guilt, it can be concluded that

“Positive” law defines legal liability (or culpability), but many theorists subscribe to concepts of “natural” law. What is “Positive” law? “Natural” law? How are they different?

This is the major difference between positivist and natural law thinkers. Natural law is the combination of laws and morals while legal positivism is the seperation of laws and morals. Legal positivism declares that morality is irrelevant to the identification of what is valid law and that the criteria for the validity of a legal rule or law in a society is that it has the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign and its agents. Raz, a positivist, stated that ‘the validity of a law can never depend on its morality’ 6 Positive law or positivism is

On the other side he discovered a vast body of water that he named "South

The contrast between Natural Law and Legal Positivism is a necessary starting point for those who wish to understand the relationship between law and morality, and the most varied manners in which it influences society to this day. When it comes to analyzing which theory offers the most well-rounded idea of law, one can argue that Legal Positivism provides the best definition of what law is at its essence. However, because Legal Positivism came to exist as a critique to what was proposed by Natural Law theorists, it is significant that both are explored in depth as means to support such argument.

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.