Jurisprudence: Legal Positivism vs Legal Naturalism

Legal positivism and legal naturalism are two contrasting theories about the nature of law and its relationship with morality and social norms.

Legal positivism is the theory that the validity of a law depends on its source rather than its content. In other words, the legitimacy of a law is determined by the authority that created it, rather than whether it is morally right or wrong. Legal positivists argue that the law is a human creation and that it is distinct from morality. According to this view, the law is made up of a set of rules that are created by political institutions, such as legislatures and courts, and are enforced through the use of coercive power.

By contrast, legal naturalism is the theory that the law is based on a set of objective moral principles that exist independently of human institutions. Natural law theorists argue that the law should be based on fundamental moral principles that are discoverable through reason and reflection. According to legal naturalism, the legitimacy of a law is based on its conformity to these moral principles, rather than its source.

In summary, legal positivism and legal naturalism represent two different approaches to the nature of law. Legal positivism emphasises the importance of the source of the law, while naturalism emphasises the importance of the content and moral principles behind the law.