After discussing the two types of legal philosophy I guess I put myself in a more legal positivist point of view. In the world today there are so many different religions and sets of morals that it is hard to believe that a natural law perspective could apply in the world today. Natural Law theory could be excellent way to base our legal system if everybody had the same “higher power” or set of morals. Legal positivism makes everything black and white, as long as people know the law they have no reason not to follow the law.
Within the philosophy of legal positivism Austin and Hart offer contrasting views. When Professor Kurdys mentioned Command Theory I thought that it made the most sense but after learning more about Hart’s theory of Incorporationism I believe that it makes more sense. If we look at our laws, many of them are there to give us more freedoms. Yes it’s true that Command Theory plays a part in our legal system but Incorporationism gives us freedom of speech, religion, and press. Without incorporationism we would be living in a very primitive society. A lot of the freedoms that we take for granted are given to us through the theory of incorporationism. We really do not think of protecting our right to own property, say what we want, or write what we want. That is because our legal system gives us these freedoms and that is what makes our country different from many others.
I would have to agree that things would be much easier if we all did believe in one higher authority. However, just because we all have different beliefs or different Gods does not mean that we share some of the same beliefs, or morals. For the most part, I think it is safe to say that we all know that it is not okay to commit murders, steal from stores, etc… I think it is pretty safe to say that most religions (except for radicals) believe in treating people how others want to be treated. I think this also applies to being a generally good person all around.
ReplyDelete