The positivist concern with legal boundaries is therefore categorically prior to moral assessment, whereas natural law theory collapses this priority ordering, making the two traditions structurally dissimilar rather than merely differently weighted.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
(Contrasted with anti-positivist views that treat law as inherently valuable)
The view that law is a distinctive form of political order rather than a moral achievement, and that whether law is necessary or useful depends entirely on its content and context
moral assessment(Used to argue that freedom is a necessary condition for being subject to praise or blame, including the assessment 'perfectly good')
The evaluation of an agent's behavior as morally good or bad, which presupposes that the agent acted freely
natural law theory(jurisprudence / philosophy of law)
The position that what counts as law must partly depend on moral criteria, such that what the law is must be determined in some sense by what the law ought to be