It is my opinion, after studying both traditional natural law and positivism, that both forms of jurisprudence, more or less, are accomplishing the same goal--that is, they are both having society cooperate under a set of given laws to ensure the greatest good or greatest gain for individuals. It is, in essence, some form of a social contract.
Though both forms of jurisprudence are effective in having society cooperate, how does either system reach a hardcore Nietzschen nihilist, an individual with no belief in moral existence, an individual who acts and then justifies their actions, an individual who creates their own laws. Well, clearly, the nihilist will not obey the traditional natural law for he or she will not believe in any ontological moral proof. Likewise, the nihilist will not obey the positivist for they will not listen to any law. Recall: the nihilist is his or her own creator and make his or her own rules after they act.
I suppose this situation may be futile. After all if one does not believe in the concept "law" then there may be no hope. Perhaps this is comparable to trying to convince an atheist to believe in God.
I suppose my question at this point is this: What besides social gain/ moral adherence does either system of law offer to an individual? Moreover, at what price does following either types of these laws sacrifice the individual within each of us, that is, does adhering to a system of laws diminish what we are capable of doing, diminish what we are capable of becoming? In other words, do laws put restrains on who we can and should become?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
From my understanding of the material so far in this course, I would respond to your last few questions with the opposite, that the laws are designed to promote our growth and development and allow us to become whatever we want, and are strictly and carefully designed so as to not impede our development.
ReplyDelete