1) In Lecture 5 of The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, Austin claims that Blackstone’s legal naturalism is, on one interpretation, “stark nonsense”. First, what does Austin mean? Second, how would a naturalist like Blackstone respond?
In William Blackstone’s Commentaries, he provides three principles to live by. They are, “we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). He refers to human law as municipal law and defines it as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). This is not much different than the core of John Austin’s theory, or any other philosopher’s views in their …show more content…
Along with Blackstone he also believes laws should be imitative of Scripture, but he has a very different understanding of how law should be implemented. While Blackstone is more of a naturalist, Austin adopts utilitarianism to shape his theories. He believes Blackstone is lenient in his theory, and more tolerant to citizens who defy law, which would lead to an unjust society.
Blackstone states, “this law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). Austin interprets this as, if “human law conflicts with divine law, the law is not binding”, and calls his theory “stark nonsense” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). Austin believes, Gods law at times can be confusing, and the law of nature cannot control society, nor can they be guidelines. Sovereignty is then needed to fill in the …show more content…
Why or why not? John Austin’s definition of law is “a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being having power” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). This seems a bit narrow minded and appears to mimic a dictatorship. Therefore it is not surprising to see him deter from divine law, and give complete control to a sovereign. “Natural law according to Austin is just a misused term for divine law” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). He also disproves of the term human law and refers to it as positive law; which he defines as “law set by political superiors to political inferiors” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010).
Though Austin seems a bit like a rebel in terms of jurisprudence; along with other legal philosophers he understands law needs to conform to Gods law. He has strong religious values, but he discredits the ease of society being able to understand Gods intent at times. Which in turn can be the result of citizens undermining their government. The following example; “God being a superior over man, and a sovereign being superior over a citizen, but whoever doesn’t comply is inferior” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010); shows Austin’s focus in his
In William Blackstone’s Commentaries, he provides three principles to live by. They are, “we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to everyone his due” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). He refers to human law as municipal law and defines it as “a rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). This is not much different than the core of John Austin’s theory, or any other philosopher’s views in their …show more content…
Along with Blackstone he also believes laws should be imitative of Scripture, but he has a very different understanding of how law should be implemented. While Blackstone is more of a naturalist, Austin adopts utilitarianism to shape his theories. He believes Blackstone is lenient in his theory, and more tolerant to citizens who defy law, which would lead to an unjust society.
Blackstone states, “this law of nature, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). Austin interprets this as, if “human law conflicts with divine law, the law is not binding”, and calls his theory “stark nonsense” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). Austin believes, Gods law at times can be confusing, and the law of nature cannot control society, nor can they be guidelines. Sovereignty is then needed to fill in the …show more content…
Why or why not? John Austin’s definition of law is “a rule laid down for the guidance of an intelligent being having power” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). This seems a bit narrow minded and appears to mimic a dictatorship. Therefore it is not surprising to see him deter from divine law, and give complete control to a sovereign. “Natural law according to Austin is just a misused term for divine law” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010). He also disproves of the term human law and refers to it as positive law; which he defines as “law set by political superiors to political inferiors” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010).
Though Austin seems a bit like a rebel in terms of jurisprudence; along with other legal philosophers he understands law needs to conform to Gods law. He has strong religious values, but he discredits the ease of society being able to understand Gods intent at times. Which in turn can be the result of citizens undermining their government. The following example; “God being a superior over man, and a sovereign being superior over a citizen, but whoever doesn’t comply is inferior” (Arthur & Shaw, 2010); shows Austin’s focus in his