Neil Boyd says that “ Law is a vitally important force. It is the skeleton that structures our economic, social, and political lives” (Boyd 5). Understanding different perspectives of sound philosophy, such as natural law, positivism, legal pragmatism, and feminism will help us with answers certain questions” Is the natural law dead, according to Roger Cotterrell? Alternatively, Whether Hatfield provides the compelling causes, if he rejects Cottrell’s argument on natural law? As well, contrasting values of natural laws with other three perspectives of law applying current contributions will also aid our understanding the different status of legal philosophy.
First, Natural law perspective of legal theory believes there is a clear connection …show more content…
He further points out that positivism, realism, and feminism sideline the natural law.In making his case, Cottrell’s says that in today’s universe, different people have diverse interests in the particular company or country. Due to this, conflict creates, and in a legal way of imagining, it needs to compromise to draw to a conclusion. Seen in this light, he further states that it is hard to get a moral soul within such a product of conflict and accord. According to Cottrell’s view, the society where the time-specific environment plays a role in making law, the everlasting moral principles have little space in it. In other words, his determination is that binding to the conventions of natural law will not provide a convincing guide in today’s complex, technological and ever-changing modern law (Boyd 10). One can argue that Cottrell’s statement is untrue that natural law is dead. Consider, for instance, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The charter’s statements are part of Canada’s Constitution Act. Nevertheless, its declarations are full of natural law ideas because there is a warrant for freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, and affiliation. Also, all these statements are mostly moral rules, having their roots in some higher system (Boyd 4). Look at another example, Canada (Attorney) General v. Bedford case, the judge’s …show more content…
Analyzing these three questions will help us realize the place of legal theory in depth. (1) Should the government tax more to high-income earners than low-income earners? (2) Should physicians be able to aid in suicide without criminal sanction? (3) Should persons with mental disabilities be given preferential treatment in certain kinds of employment? (Boyd 5). These three queries are almost related to one another economically, morally, and politically. On one hand, followers of natural law perspective would be divided into two on the basis how they define morality. For example, one group of masses (whose opinion is on grounds of moral distribution of resources) will say the government should not tax more to high-income earners. However, the same people will say that doctors should never assist with suicide and no preference in employment given to people with disabilities. On the other hand, some other group of masses (whose opinion due to unfair distribution of resources) will say the government should tax more to high-income earners. Similarly, they would say that physicians should aid with suicide and no criminal sanctions on them, and people with disabilities should
First, Natural law perspective of legal theory believes there is a clear connection …show more content…
He further points out that positivism, realism, and feminism sideline the natural law.In making his case, Cottrell’s says that in today’s universe, different people have diverse interests in the particular company or country. Due to this, conflict creates, and in a legal way of imagining, it needs to compromise to draw to a conclusion. Seen in this light, he further states that it is hard to get a moral soul within such a product of conflict and accord. According to Cottrell’s view, the society where the time-specific environment plays a role in making law, the everlasting moral principles have little space in it. In other words, his determination is that binding to the conventions of natural law will not provide a convincing guide in today’s complex, technological and ever-changing modern law (Boyd 10). One can argue that Cottrell’s statement is untrue that natural law is dead. Consider, for instance, of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. The charter’s statements are part of Canada’s Constitution Act. Nevertheless, its declarations are full of natural law ideas because there is a warrant for freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and freedoms of conscience, religion, expression, and affiliation. Also, all these statements are mostly moral rules, having their roots in some higher system (Boyd 4). Look at another example, Canada (Attorney) General v. Bedford case, the judge’s …show more content…
Analyzing these three questions will help us realize the place of legal theory in depth. (1) Should the government tax more to high-income earners than low-income earners? (2) Should physicians be able to aid in suicide without criminal sanction? (3) Should persons with mental disabilities be given preferential treatment in certain kinds of employment? (Boyd 5). These three queries are almost related to one another economically, morally, and politically. On one hand, followers of natural law perspective would be divided into two on the basis how they define morality. For example, one group of masses (whose opinion is on grounds of moral distribution of resources) will say the government should not tax more to high-income earners. However, the same people will say that doctors should never assist with suicide and no preference in employment given to people with disabilities. On the other hand, some other group of masses (whose opinion due to unfair distribution of resources) will say the government should tax more to high-income earners. Similarly, they would say that physicians should aid with suicide and no criminal sanctions on them, and people with disabilities should