False dichotomy warning: Legal positivism and natural law are not necessarily
opposites.
Although most positivists embrace statism, they need not. Positivism,
properly construed, merely requires that we define "law" by reference to the
rules that effectively control human social behavior. Nor, though many do,
need an advocate of natural law adopt the view that natural laws come from
God, or Kantian edicts, or other such noumenal realms. Advocates of natural
law can embrace a positivist methodology, arguing that natural laws are those
that in practice prove effective--"natural" if you will--to ordering human
societies. See, e.g., Hayek's explanation of the evolution of law.
Daniel Ust quoted Russell Blackford saying:
>> As you'd know, some have
>> theorised that Nazi law was not law at all because it was inconsistent
>> with the "natural law". I don't go along with that myself - as a legal
>> positivist, I find it highly implausible -
>
>Let's not restrict ourselves to the internet's favorite whipping boys,
>if you are going criticize or rebell against some law, generally you're going
>to do it from some rival standard -- i.e., not from the positivist view
>(simplifying here) of what is _is_ right. It could be from from a natural
>law perspective . . . .
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:55 MDT