Legal Positivism Over Natural Law Theory

  In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality.  The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum.  At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual.  According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality.   At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values.  For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should

A substantial debate over the law’s relationship with morality exists within the legal system. This debate gained new perspective when Oliver Wendell Holmes published The Path of Law in 1897, which outlined his view on the relationship between the law and morality. This paper will first consider whether or not Holmes believed that a writing must be moral in order to constitute a law. Next, we will explore my general agreement with Holmes’ view on this matter. Then, the paper will consider an objection to my agreement with Holmes, and then reply to that objection. Finally, we will end by analyzing the discussion of the relationship between morality and law. In this paper, I will argue that Holmes does not believe that a writing must be

However what if, in reflecting morality, the law infringes on the rights of individuals? Can these infringements be justified? Is Legal Paternalism necessary?

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL POSITIVISM This essay is going to discuss and analyse the differences between two basic principles- natural law and legal positivism. According to Hume, there are two realms of human enquiry , one in the field of facts which is concerned with what ‘ is ‘ actually the case and the other in the field of ‘ought’ that is, what ought to be the case1. Those who believe in the principle of natural law are known as naturalists while those who believe in the principle of legal positivism or ‘positive law’ are known as positivists. This is a brief overview of the two principles of

The official version of the law is the basis on which the law prides itself to be. It claims to be neutral, having no prejudice against race, sex, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristics. The law compares itself to a blindfolded woman as historically women who have been seen as virgins who are pure, uninfluenced, and have no biases. The official version of the law is bound by one rule and that is everyone is subjected to the law and will be treated equally under it. Stare Decisis, a well known term to legal scholars is used define how judges are bound by precedent which means they must treat all cases the same and thus leading to the basis of the official version which is predictable, unbiased law. My focus in this paper is to

Judges bound to uphold the United States Constitution under positivist legal theory do so regardless of the morality of the law, but rather because of an obligation to the law because it is a valid part of the legal system. HLA Hart’s positivist perspective defines law as the union of primary and secondary rules, and that we follow those rules simply because they are consistent with the rule of recognition. Looking at slave law, we see that we as humans posited laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act, setting them into stone as law in the United States. But even though we can argue that slave law is morally wrong, positive law in America provides for it. In

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.

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.

This paper will demonstrate how Hart’s account of the relationship between law and morality shows an understanding of how they both work together yet can also work as separate entities. It will take a specific look into the internal point of view to aid the understanding of why

The legal-formalist belief in the capacity of legal rules to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness has been severely criticised by, amongst others, legal realists and critical legal studies scholars. This assignment will firstly address what legal formalism entails, following which the criticisms of legal formalism will be discussed and lastly whether legal formalism can impede the transformative ideas of the Constitution. All of the above will be analysed to determine the role of legal formalism today.

Arguably one of the most influential legal theorists of the 20th century, Ronald Dworkin’s dealings with law’s interpretation and integrity has lead to inevitable contradictions with that of positivist ideology, with his work essentially revitalising a method of thinking that had long been considered dead and buried. Perhaps most notoriously, Dworkin combated the positivist theory of his former teacher and predecessor as Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford University, H.L.A. Hart. When comparing the two, it is apparent that Dworkin and Hart disagree on a plethora of issues, however there exist several

I agree with Dworkin on this because this idea of subjective decision-making and interpretation is evident in the American Legal Realism theory where rules (or law) are seen as insufficient to cover all different types of cases. Even though the theory of American Legal Realism believes in the above idea, it still believes that some laws do, in fact, cover certain cases and scenarios which allows for the direct application of the law and thus an objective approach to judicial decision-making and interpretation. Through this, we see that both Dworkin and American Legal Realism identify the balancing act between objective and subjective judicial decision-making and interpretation. Yet, both the theories of American Legal Realism and Dworkin strongly affirm the idea of a subjective aspect always, or often, coming into play when judges take part in deciding cases and interpretation.

Hart’s critique of Austin boils down to determining the normativity of law (the reason why we should

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.