[ad_1]
Legal positivism is the belief that laws are solely based on government decisions and don’t need to be connected to morals. It values clarity over societal beliefs and requires obedience to laws regardless of moral opinion. Positivism has advantages, such as clear boundaries, but also potential drawbacks, such as oppression by the majority. Natural law disagrees with legal positivism and posits that moral concerns are more important. In practice, most democratic governments enforce laws in a way that doesn’t fully agree with either extreme.
Simply put, legal positivism is the idea that laws are purely based on what the government officially decides. This basically means that law and morals need not be connected in any way. Legal positivism generally values the clarity of exactness over the nuance of society’s belief systems. It is at odds with the idea of so-called “natural” law, which views law as an extension of already existing moral norms in society and essentially discredits laws that exist in violation of those norms.
According to legal positivism, if a law is written by an official authority, it should be followed, even if it is not necessarily justified or ethical. Obedience to laws regardless of moral opinion is seen as necessary to maintain order in a society. There may be a million slightly different viewpoints of morals and ethics, but legal positivists generally think that the law should be devoid of these nuances to avoid chaos.
According to many experts, positivism has both advantages and disadvantages. One of the main potential benefits is the clarity of positivism. When laws are explicitly defined, no one has to use guesswork when trying to stay within the legal boundaries. Everyone knows exactly what is expected of them, and many people believe that clear boundaries help people avoid confusion, which sometimes makes legal systems fairer.
There are also some perceived potential drawbacks of legal positivism. The greatest danger may be the potential for oppression by the majority over the minority. For example, there was a time when slavery was technically legal in the United States and many other parts of the world. Some experts would argue that challenging these kinds of laws is not only justified, but actually necessary to move society forward. Another example would be protesters, who often break the law at various rallies, but may occasionally have strong ethical reasons for their violations.
The idea of natural law generally disagrees sharply with legal positivism because it posits that moral concerns are more important than what is actually written. In practice, most democratic governments end up enforcing laws in a way that doesn’t quite agree with either extreme. For example, the law may require someone to be arrested for a crime that is not actually supported by most citizens for ethical reasons. Once the person goes to court, however, a judge and jury may decide to be very light on their sentence, or even refuse to convict the person. Thus, there is a human element of natural law which sometimes serves as a moderation for the potential harshness of legal positivism.
[ad_2]