Natural Law Theorists And Positivist Theorists

1850 Words8 Pages
To what degree are natural law theorists and positivist theorists accurate in terms of the idea that ‘an unjust law cannot be a valid law’? In this essay i will assess the accuracy of this statement and attempt to define the concept of the validity of law in relation to both natural law theorists and positivist theorists. For the purpose of this essay I will define validity of a law as ”Having legal force; effective or binding” (The Free Dictionary). The main reason for the continual debate between both theories is that they are both very similar although they may appear to be at contrary ends of each spectrum. Natural law theorists believe that in order for a law to be valid it must have some moral principle therefore if laws which are enacted in statues have no authority, they are not moral. Whereas positivists support and emphasise the importance of a division between morality and law. I will begin by outlining both theories. I will then move onto asses the accuracy of the following statement, ‘An unjust law cannot be a valid law’ this includes establishing the similarities and differences of both theories; in order to do this effectively it is essential that a thorough understanding of both theories has been developed. Finally I will summarise my findings, An unjust law cannot be a valid law - true or false? The first question we need to address in order to be able to assess this statement is - what is natural law? The basic concept of natural law is that in order for a
Get Access