Legal Positivism Vs. Law Of Nature

When thinking about morality, it is necessary to consider how aspects from both nature and nurture, along with free will, may form ones moral beliefs and dictate ones moral actions. To understand how moral beliefs as well as actions formulate and operate within individuals and societies, it is imperative that a general definition of morality is laid out. Morality, then, can be defined as ones principles regarding what is right and wrong, good or bad. Although an individual may hold moral beliefs, it is not always the case that moral actions follow. Therefore, in this essay I aim to provide an explanation that clarifies the two and in doing so I also hope to further the notion that one’s moral framework is a product of all three factors; nature, nurture, and free will. The first part of this essay will flush out what exactly morality it and how it manifests similarly across individuals and differently across individuals. Contrariwise, I will then explain how morality manifests similarly across societies and differently across societies. Alongside presenting the information in this order, I will trace morality back to primordial times to showcase how morality has evolved and developed since then, not only from a nature-based standpoint, but also from a

The progression of morality as it relates to the influence of family, religion and society varies between Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Our contemporary society has been influenced tremendously in many different areas by these different societies.

The topic of human morality has been debated by great thinkers throughout human history. “And human nature too is like the water: it doesn’t chose between good and evil any more than water chooses between east and west.” (Austin 79) In fact, it can be argued that what constitutes an immutable form of good vs. evil has been at the source of debates in both religious morality and a broader philosophical understanding of what these forms represent. Furthermore, morality has been fluid over time, changing to reflect the cultural mores of society; given enough time, even perception of previously taboo practices has changed in response to changes in culture as well as the proliferation and recession of religion. As

In our current society the moral code is a combination of the previous era’s beliefs, mashed together with the latest public opinion of what is right and what is wrong. And increasingly in this era of information, people are choosing their own moral code. Usually taking snippets from different philosophies and merging them together.

This became more and more prevalent in the 20th century. In the 20th century new technologies were created, and two huge wars were fought. These events changed people’s viewpoints on a vast range of topics, and therefore morality. For example, since

For centuries, philosophers have struggled to study the complexities of abstract concepts such as law and justice. Born in the Age of Enlightenment, Thomas Hobbes was a political philosopher with a strong belief rooted in legal positivism (Riley, 2009). His famous book, Leviathan, argued that the law is created to rule over man and the law is made by the government in charge (Duncan, 2009). Hobbes also believed that people needed government because “without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man” (Hobbes, 1651). From this stems the philosophy of having a supreme government with absolute control over its citizens (Thomas Hobbes, 2014). According to

Answer: law is basically a device to regulate the economic and social behaviour of society. Generally laws are created by people to maintain harmony in the society and the country. As people have to follow the certain rules of the country or society, there is a sense of responsibility people feel. If people lived in complete isolation and didn’t carry on any economic activity or recognise any superior authority, there would be no need for laws to exist because there would be nothing to regulate or control. However, the reality is otherwise. People don’t live in complete isolation and economic activity is carried on. The law, as regulatory device, provides the mechanism for society to function by prioritising needs and desires through tools such as legislation. All these laws are made by the superiors at the higher stages. Even the people establishing these laws have to follow the same laws so it has to be made regarding the needs of the people. The people creating laws have the power to organise all these laws and should be pass the law according to the demand of time and the need of the people.

When young children read the well-known fable in class, they are unaware that the story has a moral. It has a lesson that the adults attempt to instill in them at the very beginning stages of their lives. These lessons teach morality and begin to introduce certain values to children. In this way, every person develops values throughout his/her life that are impacted by his or her environment, biology and social constructs. Through these values, morality is developed and because each person has his or her own unique values, morality is based upon the individual. All organisms have evolved throughout their existence on Earth, but interestingly, humans are the only species that apply morals to their lives. Morality and technology are manmade inventions. Morality relies on evolution and the presence of technology.

Legal positivism offers a definition of laws as a written declaration made by government officials that have legal power to control certain aspects of society and human conduct (Himma, 2004). Legal positivist recognize all rules, regulations, principles and other forms of law that come from an authorized government body or official (Himma, 2004). But Legal positivist do not recognize laws, principles or any form of law or behavior modifier that does not come directly from an authorized government official (George, 1996). Any behavioral norms will not be recognized but legal norms are deemed as enforceable by the police power of the government (George, 1996). Legal positivism is often put in contrast with natural law because they are basically opposites.

When we are young our morality is shaped as we learn from our family and the environment. “Psychologists say a child must develop a sense of values by the age of seven to become an adult with a conscience” (Rosenstand 4). Children experience a plethora of information and subsequently build their personalities based on what they learn from growing up in their given culture. We are a product of our environment in the sense that we

The question of what the law is a philosophical one, which probably has no definite answer to it. This is evident as we have seen a lot of legal theorists trying to come with answers to the question. Ronald Dworkin says it is “a set of explicitly adapted rules and ought to maximise the general welfare” , Fuller on the other believed “law should withstand the scrutiny of reason and opposed the idea of legal positivism that law is no higher than a particular authority” , John Austin defined it to be “the command of the sovereign, backed up by sanctions” , Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart said that law was “the rules that may forbid individuals to perform various kinds of actions or that may impose various obligations on individuals.” These

Morality, a primary determinant of the behavior of individuals, deals with the distinction between right and wrong. Individuals adhere to at least some level of morality, impacting their everyday choices and decisions. The actions individuals take, such as what someone does or does not do, can have consequences on the surrounding environment, the people they come into contact with, and, especially, themselves. Morality, from an evolutionary standpoint, is necessary for the development of a community or population in order to maintain social order. It would seem that good morals and strong ethics are required for proper functioning and are perhaps seen as ordinary and static elements of an individual; however, morality can be impacted by various

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.

The law is are principles established by parliament (ie. by our representatives) and by the courts. Hence, law is made by people for society and was developed to set standards of conduct between people, businesses and government. If these standards of behaviour and rules are not followed, the law manages the conflicts that arise, and punishes those who breach these standards of conduct. We have laws so that society can work effectively, to make sure that people or organisations are not able to use power, money or strength to take advantage and exploit others or for creating better things for themselves. Laws help people or group of people to make sure that they understands their rights and obligations, and the rights and obligations of others