legal positivism notes

legal positivism notes - LEGAL POSITIVISM VS. LEGAL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LEGAL POSITIVISM VS. LEGAL NATURALISM I. What is the debate about? a. Natural law:   legal norms must satisfy moral norms in  order to be counted as law. i. There is a “moral reality” that is supposed to be  the source of all of our legal  rules/regulations/etc…. b. Legal positivism:   properly created norms are laws,  regardless of whether they are “moral” or “immoral.” i. “Positivism:”  possibly to make clear the  positivists’ view that our laws as “posited” rather  than just being “natural,” or having their source in  some kind of a natural morality.  ii. Thus, there is a “separation of law and morality” iii. Law exists as a result of the nature of our social  necessities/realities/facts/etc…. a. Commands, conventions, agreements,  etc. Thus, natural law tells us that there is a necessary connection   between law and morality, and legal positivism claims that no   such connection exists. II. Yes, but who cares? a. Good question!  Why would this debate matter to: i. A judge? 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
ii. A lawyer? iii. A plaintiff? iv. A legislator? v. A defendant? vi. You?      III. A closer look at legal positivism a. Two main theses: i. Legal validity is totally separated from morality. ii. Normative questions (what the law ought to be) 
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 7

legal positivism notes - LEGAL POSITIVISM VS. LEGAL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online