Difference Between Natural Law And Legal Positivism

833 Words 4 Pages
There are a few differences between natural law and legal positivism. However, before diving into the differences, a definition for both the theories should be provided. Basically, a natural law is a law in which is derived from the validity of morality and reasoning. Natural law is believed to be served on the best interest of the common good as well. For legal positivism, it is viewed in the source of a law has no connection between reasoning and morality. A legal positivism should be from an establishment of that law by some socially recognized legal authority. There is a clear cut between law and morality in legal positivism. Legal positivist such as John Austin view law on a logical aspect of law, in which morality does not have a place in. The main differences between natural law and legal positivism is the element of morality. Natural law provides that the law should reflect on moral order whereas the legal positivism states that there is no connection between law and morality. In legal positivism, HLA Hart had come …show more content…
This is shown through the philosophy provided by Aquinas and Cicero in which they have stated that natural law consist of morality which has been founded through ones experience or through a person’s reasoning on situations. For legal positivist however, a law is considered as good law when the law is enacted by a proper legal authorities, following the rules, procedures and constrains of the legal system. This is provided by legal positivist John Austin in which he was a strong believer of legal positivism. John Austin is more renowned for his Command theory in which he believes that once there is a person of sovereign over a country and this sovereign gives command which must be followed if not there will be sanctions as a consequences. This is regardless whether morality plays a part or

Related Documents