Pure Theory Of Law Essay

In the modern world, competition is the bond that holds society together. Every person can relate to it whether that competition is within a sport, video game, or a court hearing. The Canadian legal structure operates on the adversarial system. Neil Brooks defines an adversarial system as one in “which the parties and not the judge have the primary responsibility for defining the issues in dispute and for carrying the dispute forward through the system” (Brooks, The judge and the Adversary system.p.341-353). Within the adversarial system the judge has less of a role. He’s passive due to his lack of participation in the fact-finding. Its opposing system is the

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

1.Adams orders one thousand widgets at $5 per widget from International Widget to be delivered within sixty days. After the contract is consummated and signed, Adams requests that International deliver the widgets within thirty days rather than sixty days. International agrees. Is the contractual modification binding?

There are many ideas about the correct basis for contractual obligation. They include promise, consideration, and cause. All jurisdictions follow at least one. In Thomas E. Davitt’s The Elements of Law, the author articulates a very credible argument for the basis for contractual obligation being one of those named above. Davitt simplifies the arguments for all of these and names one correct basis: the promise itself. Generally Thomas E. Davitt, S.J., The Elements of Law, 272 (1959). This paper will argue in favor of Davitt’s writings. The basis for contractual obligation is the promise itself. In order to effectively argue in favor of one basis over the possible others, it is necessary to discuss and rule out the others.

     In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

Pondering the question Can the law ever be truly just? Takes times because I found myself going back and forth. In deciding with my final thought I can not say that the law can be truly just. I could agree with saying that the law can be truly fair however, ‘truly just’ is not fully capable in Canada. With our current system of common law, I believe we are moving closer to what a just system looks like. When thinking of a man made system my views are quite simple. The law has stemmed down from the law given from God. We have not moved away from our roots making the man made system understandable. Our justice does not come in the court room or the prison cell but the moment that our life ends and God judges us.

Looking back at these two works written in the mid to late 19th century, it has become clear the benefits and detrimental aspects of the opinions of the writers. The statements and arguments made by each author will be considered in the general impact each philosopher had on the 21st century.

John Finnis, an Australian legal philosopher has tried to resurrect the natural law tradition in moral philosophy and law since the mid-1960s. He tries to offer a "neo-Aquinian" natural law philosophy which does not presuppose a divine being. By focusing attention on goods rather than a single Good, Finnis skilfully articulates what he calls a theory of moral action for our day. Or, in other words, he seeks a theory of how to live well. Finnis identifies a number of equally valuable basic goods or ends, given human nature, there are seven. Three are substantive, existing prior to action and four are reflexive which is depending on our choices.

The statement above said by Lord Bingham, from ‘The Rule of Law’ (2007) 66 (1) Cambridge Law Journal 67-85, p. 76. The statement references that the rule of law is not abided by if the state does not provide human protection. This statement can be looked upon, agreed and disagreed with after reviewing the two theories in the rule of law. This will be made possible, as I compare Joseph Raz’s formal theory and Lord Bingham’s Substantive Theory on the rule of law. But firstly, I will address what the Rule of Law is;

“What are the major strengths and weakness of Dworkin’s theory of law as compared to a positivist or natural law perspective?” Discuss.

• How would your friend’s theft be dealt with under the law in this country?

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)

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

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.