The command version of legal positivism essay

Etymology[ edit ] The term positivism is derived from ponere, positum, meaning, "to put". The "merits" of a law are a separate issue: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy summarises the distinction between merit and source like so: According to positivism, law is a matter of what has been posited ordered, decided, practiced, tolerated, etc.

The command version of legal positivism essay

Comtean positivism was more overtly religious than any school of natural law theory. Legal positivism has also been confused with the ancient idea of positive law.

The command version of legal positivism essay

Hartand Joseph Raz Nor is it the case that twentieth-century legal positivism directly stems from traditional theories of positive law: The leading legal positivists of our day, such as Hart and Raz, almost never speak of positive law while a major theorist of positive law today, John Finnis, is no legal positivist.

Still, we distinguish in order to unite, and there is an important relation between traditional theories of positive law and modern versions of legal positivism. The theory of positive law cannot be understood except by contrast with two other kinds of law.

In contrast to natural law, however, positive law is defined variously as morally indifferent, morally arbitrary, or morally adventitious. So in one sense, to claim that law is positive is to make a descriptive claim about its source: Yet in another sense, to claim that law is positive is to make a normative claim about its content: It is often difficult to distinguish properties that often co-exist: So it is understandable, then, to associate what is positive in content with what is positive in source.

Nonetheless, our two senses of positive law are logically independent, even if they are often found together. Natural-law norms can be deliberately imposed by sovereign authority, as in parts of the Decalogue, the American Bill of Rights, and the West German Federal Constitution.

Although these norms have intrinsic and universal moral force quite apart from these historical enactments, the fact that they were solemnly adopted by legislative authority provides citizens of those polities additional moral reasons for respecting them.

These laws, then, are natural in content but positive in source. Conversely, many of the rules of customary or common law lack intrinsic moral force: The two most distinctive theses of contemporary legal positivism both stem from the traditional accounts of the two senses of positive law: In contrast to custom, positive law is imposed by deliberate imposition.

Obviously, the claim that law has its source in deliberate sovereign imposition applies better to some kinds of law than to other kinds: When Hobbes argues that all civil law is positive, he means that all civil law is imposed by the sovereign.

What about customary or common law? John Austin similarly argued that common law reflects a kind of indirect legislation: Later legal positivists, however, have become embarrassed by these crudely Procrustean methods of forcing all kinds of law into a legislative mold.

Hart effectively refuted the argument that whatever the sovereign permits, he commands. Nonetheless, Hart also attempted an explanatory reductionism of law by tracing all legal norms to a unique rule of recognition whereby the whole legal system, from the orders of a police officer to the statutes of Parliament, forms a top-down chain of command.

So the claim that all law is somehow posited by deliberate acts of legal officials continues to fail to make sense of the role of custom as a largely independent source of law.

In contrast to natural law, positive law is morally arbitrary or indifferent. Some exclusive legal positivists argue that legal validity necessarily excludes appeals to moral truth while other inclusive positivists argue that some legal systems in particular, the American permit appeals to moral truth in the finding of law Waluchow: Lon Fuller argued against the legal positivists that law necessarily embodies some procedural principles that are moral in content: Ronald Dworkin argued against the legal positivists by asserting that law includes general principles that can be indentified and deployed only by means of moral argument by judges.

Critics say that what many legal positivists fail to note is that there are several sound natural-law reasons for the positivity of law. To coordinate complex human activities, law must descend into concrete particularity: So natural law shows us why it is morally necessary for law to be largely morally indifferent in content.

Similarly, many legal positivists, such as Raz, argue that we must be able to identify legal norms without recourse to moral argument, because the point of a legal system is to provide a framework for social interaction in contexts precisely where there is no agreement about moral principles.

Here again, we can see that there are good moral reasons for insisting on objective criteria for identifying valid legal norms, if we hope to sustain a legal order that can be respected by citizens of widely divergent moral views. In short, say natural law theorists, over a wide range of legal norms and institutions, the requirements for valid law identified by legal positivists are not only compatible with, but also find their deepest justification in, natural law theory Finnis Scientific positivists since Ernst Mach have often asserted that the aim of science is not description or even explanation but prediction.Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher and political radical.

He is primarily known today for his moral philosophy, especially his principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based upon their consequences. The relevant consequences, in particular, are the overall happiness created for. Legal positivism is a school of thought of analytical jurisprudence, largely developed by eighteenth- and nineteenth-century legal thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Austin.

The command version of legal positivism essay

While Bentham and Austin developed legal positivist theory, empiricism set the theoretical foundations for such developments to occur. This essay has been submitted by a law student.

This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Legal positivism of law Introduction. If there is one doctrine that is distinctively associated with legal positivism, it . Hart from nuancing Austin’s theory of law as command through the inauguration of primary and secondary rules serves to rescue the basic principles of legal positivism from the critique that the definition of law in legal positivism is inadequate.

Hans Kelsen (/ ˈ k ɛ l s ən /; German: [ˈhans ˈkɛlsən]; October 11, – April 19, ) was an Austrian jurist, legal philosopher and political is author of the Austrian Constitution, which to a very large degree is still valid to the rise of totalitarianism in Austria (and a constitutional change), Kelsen left for Germany in but was forced.

COMMUNIQUE #3 Haymarket Issue "I NEED ONLY MENTION in passing that there is a curious reappearance of the Catfish tradition in the popular Godzilla cycle of films which arose after the nuclear chaos unleashed upon Japan.

Western philosophy - Renaissance philosophy |