Positivism and Natural Law
Browse articles:
Auto Beauty Business Culture Dieting DIY Events Fashion Finance Food Freelancing Gardening Health Hobbies Home Internet Jobs Law Local Media Men's Health Mobile Nutrition Parenting Pets Pregnancy Products Psychology Real Estate Relationships Science Seniors Sports Technology Travel Wellness Women's Health
Browse companies:
Automotive Crafts, Hobbies & Gifts Department Stores Electronics & Wearables Fashion Food & Drink Health & Beauty Home & Garden Online Services & Software Sports & Outdoors Subscription Boxes Toys, Kids & Baby Travel & Events

Positivism and Natural Law

The exploration of the philosophical views of positivism and the natural law.

Positivism is regard as one of the influential thoughts within the multifaceted realism of the legal and jurisprudence philosophy. The modern claims within this framework of legal positivism hold that there is a gap between the validity of legal states and social ethics or morals. Laws, say the claims, are rules agreed upon by human beings that share a certain locality which can either be conscious or unconscious.

      The relationship that exists between ethics/morals and law is very thin and thus hard to define. Legal positivists hold that such relationship is non-existence and is actually disruptive of the normal functioning of any law. While the two phenomenon maybe related in terms of practice, positivists hold that there exist an obvious conceptual difference. They appreciate the fact that laws are posited by humans who have a responsibility to blend it with the social norms and morals, if need be.

     It is important to understand the workings of various legal theories. Each theory is defined by a unique conceptual framework through which its proponents believe will be able to deliver and solve operational problems. While these theories will have divergent views, their ultimate goal remains to better systems and revamp the legal professional. These theories provide alternatives for addressing various gaps within law and the general quest for both natural and legal justice.

     The radically divergent practical outcomes precipitated by these theories have greatly impacted on the legal system and the general faculty of justice. The exploration of natural law, for instance, has advocated the tampering of law with ethics and morals. The philosophical implications associated with relating law with morals and ethics are far too complex and open up a wide and an unending debates among legal practitioners and scholars.

     It is worth noting that while positivists hold law separately from ethics and morals; this does not mean that they hold laws with such a high esteem. They do not endorse that humans should be dictated by laws. In this regard, their endorsement of the validity of a law based on content and context is not assured and they only consider law as a human institution that is worth commenting on.

          Natural law, on the other hand, lacks adequate definition. There exist divergent views in what exactly is meant by natural law. Aristotle (384–322 bc) studied this concepts and concluded that what maybe just by nature may not necessarily be just legally. There is, therefore, as Aristotle observed a natural justice whose existence has nothing to do with what humans think or believe in. Natural law can be defined as the rules that are ‘written in our hearts’. This is the law that governs from within what makes humans what they really are.

        Laws have been designed to ensure that people exist in harmony. While there is need to ensure that natural justice and legal justice cohere, scholars have always decried of its impossibility. Natural justice is hard to find within the quarters of legal law. This is because legal justice is mostly as a result of petitions and debates among various legal professionals. The emergent conclusions may at times be inclined towards unfairness. Natural justice is, however, more assured but hard to enjoy. People should not rely on set rules, norms and morals in deciding what to do. Everyone has a right to do what he or she pleases as long as it does inflict on the right of the other.

       In comparing the two, positivism and natural law, it is worth admitting that the positivism is more appealing than natural law. While laws in the society are well intended, it is impossible to blend rules/laws with ethics and morals. Morals and ethics are more of natural laws that are agreed among members of a community. It is important to embrace the view of positivists that laws should only be validated on the basis of what pleases the soul and does not injure other people. It is very difficult to marry laws with ethics and morals,

Additional resources:

Need an answer?
Get insightful answers from community-recommended
in Philosophy on Knoji.
Would you recommend this author as an expert in Philosophy?
You have 0 recommendations remaining to grant today.
Comments (1)
George Eliot

You seem to have managed the bridge between the poles!