I don't believe that Natural Law and Positivism are the same thing. Positivists hold that there is no inherent or necessary connection between the conditions of law and ethics or morality. Laws are made either deliberately or unintentionally by human beings for the good. Although the distinction is difficult between the two, natural law on the other hand holds that there is somewhat of a connection between law and morality and/or ethics. Supporters believe that law is from nature and therefore is valid everywhere. Positivism is not as clear cut with the validity. Since natural law came first in line I believe positivism is basically refining the ideology of natural law. Natural law is an earlier approach that used morality solely to explain the essence of laws. When natural law was born, morality and religion were used for the basis of everything. Positivists agree with natural law on most of its aspects but dispute the fact that there is a connection between morality and law so it is definitely refining the older theory.
However, I have a different idea on why we follow laws regardless of what positivism or natural law or any of the theories state. I believe we follow laws solely because we are afraid of the consequences. If the consequences are severe enough, we will follow the law. There are exceptions, such as people who commit crimes for the thrill or for a status but that is whole other discussion. If I had to, I would agree mostly with the Command Theory rather than the Role of Recognition. I don't believe we commit crimes because doing so is rewarding. If that is the case, the reward is to be free of fines, records, or sentences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that we would follow the law if the consequences were severe enough; I think there are certain things that the law will never be able to prevent, hence the "war" on drugs. Also, I do not think society has the means to make the consequences for crime so serious that nobody commits crimes. Also, the consequences are often irrelevant, as most criminals either rarely get caught or at least do not think they will ever get caught. Also, many crimes are committed with complete disregard to the law. I guess I think that as a whole, society follows laws for different reasons. It depends on the law itself and the person following it.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that positivism and natural law are not the same at all. You are right in distinguishing that positivism bases its theories of writer law or what is to be proclaimed as law. Natural law focuses more on the ethics and morals of laws such as being a higher law and law is universal under the natural law approach. I do not agree that the only people follow law is because of punishment because then there would be no prisoners or offenders. People follow laws because they have certain values and feel some practices are unethical so they choose not to do them not because their scared of the consequences.
ReplyDelete