Natural Law roots can be traced to ancient Greco-Roman times mentioned by various renown philosophers such as Cicero, Plato and Aristotle. The advent and rise of Christianity through Medieval Europe has decidedly coloured the theory with a religious flavour, so to speak, in the form of the foremost classical natural law authority, St. Thomas Aquinas. Being heavily influenced by Aristotle , Aquinas views law as “a rule or measure of human acts, whereby a person is induced to act or is restrained from acting” Whether an action is good or bad depends on whether it accords to reason. He introduced the concept of eternal law in which there is an ingrained law within us according to our nature, and that we have the inherent ability to discern …show more content…
He does not hold the view of the content of the law being morally constricted, but there exists certain moral constraints on procedural mechanisms on how laws are made and carried out. He sees his inner morality principles as a procedural version of natural law on how behavioural guides should be created and carried out in order for it to be effective. And while classical naturalists believe on the effect the moral constraints operate on individual laws, Fuller sees morality providing constraint not just on individual laws but on the legal system’s existence. Law is interconnected with, changes and grows in line to reflect the needs of society, The court’s role is not a passive one, it takes an active role in explaining the significance of a shared purpose in a symbiotic relationship with society, with law providing order. He views the law as an activity and the legal system as the product of a sustained purposive effort . To Fuller, the law’s purpose is to “achiev[e] [social] order through subjecting people’s conduct to the guidance of general rules by which they may themselves orient their behavior ”.
The revival and evolution of modern natural law concept came about as a form of criticism against H.L.A. Hart, notably by Fuller, Devlin and Dworkin in their rebuttal to Hart’s published lecture . Hart identifying a positivist view espoused the conceptual separation of law and morality and a legal system can function as effectively even if it is neither just
In strain theory, laws are equivalent to the accepted means that people can use to achieve their goals, which are described as a product of tradition and consensus. According to Frederick von Savigny, laws are “generalized statements of the tendencies actually operating, of the presuppositions on which a particular civilization is based” (Hagan 5). In this view, laws are almost indistinguishable from the commonly held morality found in a society. This theory on the nature of laws appears to match Merton’s understanding of how goals and methods of obtaining these goals are formed. An apposing theory on the creation of laws views them as a “product of conflict” (Hagan 5).
In his book, “The Law”, Frederic Bastiat aims to counter the trend in legislation which he identified in France during his life. A legislator himself, Bastiat worried that the scope of the law had expanded far past what was just and thus performed the very acts of greed and plunder which it should aim to prevent. Bastiat based his argument on the idea that the essence of man is found in his personality, liberty, and property. The role of law is to protect these faculties of man, and anything beyond is abuse of power and legal plunder. Bastiat views these elements which comprise man as innate.
In his essay The Model of Rules I, Professor Ronald Dworkin argues against a certain theory of law he attributes to H.L.A Hart called “positivism.” While Dworkin argues against many tenets of the positivist theory, I will focus this essay on critical reasons against Dworkin’s argument against the legal positivist thesis that the law consist of nothing but rules. To do so, I will explain the necessary components of Hart’s theory of law required to understand Dworkin’s rebuttal. Then, I will reconstruct Dworkin’s argument against what I will classify “nothing but rules” claim, and I will ultimate claim Dworkin’s argument fails because his premise that states principles are extra-legal and cannot be explained as part of the categories is false. In particular, I indicate how principles can be legally binding like legal rules are, and I pick apart his reasons for believing that there are clear distinctions between laws and principles.
Rene Descartes believed in a similar concept of God creating natural laws. Not only did God place the laws, but he wanted the part of humans, laws, etc. to play out in the universe based on them. This explains their belief in the creation of the universe in which it could only be made by someone with all knowledge. The role that humans would play could only be contributed based on the natural
Martin Luther King discusses many philosophical principles in the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” that relates with Aquinas discussion about law. Most of Martin Luther King’s philosophical ideas have to deal with natural law. According to Aquinas natural law is promulgated by reason and also rational participation in the eternal law. But in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” we can see how human law is connected to natural law always.
Furthermore, from two scholarly perspectives, authors Richard Rothstein and Kitty Calavita, we can deepen our engagement with this relationship in their books, The Color of Law and Invitation to Law and Society, An Introduction
and Aquinas both identify a 'higher law.' In "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," King refers to this higher law as "moral law" or the "law of God." Similarly, Aquinas uses the terms "natural law" and "eternal law." This 'higher law' takes precedence over human law. 'Higher law,' according to both King and Aquinas, comes from God and gives the universe its rational and moral order.
The laws stand as a basic understanding of right from wrong and allowed civilizations to keep the most peace among their people as they
In hard cases, judges are not legislating, as Hart’s positivists assert, they are inducing based on principle. Judges have a duty not only to apply the rules, but also to make sure that the legal system is consistent with the principles of the society. When judges are said to legislate, they are not making the rules but discovering them. [20] According to Dworkin understanding the role of the courts is to defend the rights of citizens from the likelihood of unfair rules or other circumstances in which the written laws do not satisfactorily defend their natural rights.
An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.
This concept of the natural law originates from God 's law. The concept of liberty is very dependent on the belief of natural law when creating a government system. In theory, the natural law comes from the state of nature and this helps many political philosophers create laws for a successful
The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".
Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man
TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.
Law is present in our daily life and in everything we do. We cannot think a second without law. Whatever we can see around us everything is connected with the law. Sometimes we can see it and sometimes we cannot see but feel it. Law is not just a thing to obey for yourself but making a peaceful society.