Difference between revisions of "Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group R/Positivism"
Piaseckam13 (talk | contribs) |
Piaseckam13 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Positive Law as Reaction to Natural Law Theory''' | + | == '''Positive Law as Reaction to Natural Law Theory''' == |
Legal Positivism is a reaction to the Natural Law Theory, as discussed by Thomas Aquinas. Positivists, such as John Austin, argue that moral content is not an essential element of the law; it is rather a separate entity. | Legal Positivism is a reaction to the Natural Law Theory, as discussed by Thomas Aquinas. Positivists, such as John Austin, argue that moral content is not an essential element of the law; it is rather a separate entity. | ||
| − | '''Validity of a Law''' | + | == '''Validity of a Law''' == |
Austin believed that society was governed by three legal entities: (1) God's law, (2) Positive morality, and (3) Positive law. | Austin believed that society was governed by three legal entities: (1) God's law, (2) Positive morality, and (3) Positive law. | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
This case raises great controversy in the relationship between law and morality. While morality prescribes that we ought to care for our neighbours (''Donogue v. Stevenson''), the courts in ''B.M.''decide that we don't have to. If there is a lack of causation between an officer's duty of care and a victim's harm, not caring is legally acceptable (Reference). Positivists argue that law is created by the Sovereign and that its subjects ought to obey it regardless of its congruency to morality. | This case raises great controversy in the relationship between law and morality. While morality prescribes that we ought to care for our neighbours (''Donogue v. Stevenson''), the courts in ''B.M.''decide that we don't have to. If there is a lack of causation between an officer's duty of care and a victim's harm, not caring is legally acceptable (Reference). Positivists argue that law is created by the Sovereign and that its subjects ought to obey it regardless of its congruency to morality. | ||
| − | '''Modern Legal Positivism''' | + | == '''Modern Legal Positivism''' == |
- Hart's rule of recognition | - Hart's rule of recognition | ||
-> expanding on the idea of radicalism of positivist theory -> what needs to be changed within the law? -> critique | -> expanding on the idea of radicalism of positivist theory -> what needs to be changed within the law? -> critique | ||
Revision as of 11:29, 21 February 2014
Positive Law as Reaction to Natural Law Theory
Legal Positivism is a reaction to the Natural Law Theory, as discussed by Thomas Aquinas. Positivists, such as John Austin, argue that moral content is not an essential element of the law; it is rather a separate entity.
Validity of a Law
Austin believed that society was governed by three legal entities: (1) God's law, (2) Positive morality, and (3) Positive law.
In order to be valid, a law has to meet certain requirements. It had to be a (1) command, (2) issued by superiors, (3) and backed by sanctions. Legal Positivism, therefore, dictates that law is man made and that morality is not an essential part of it. This stands in contrast to Natural Law theory, in which morality is very dominant.
The Sovereign in B.M. v. British Columbia is the Crown. In this case, Peggy Mooney was shafted by the police. Her concerns and fears were not taken seriously, which ultimately resulted in her friend's death and other damages. The Crown argues that it did not owe Mooney a private duty of care. The c
This case raises great controversy in the relationship between law and morality. While morality prescribes that we ought to care for our neighbours (Donogue v. Stevenson), the courts in B.M.decide that we don't have to. If there is a lack of causation between an officer's duty of care and a victim's harm, not caring is legally acceptable (Reference). Positivists argue that law is created by the Sovereign and that its subjects ought to obey it regardless of its congruency to morality.
Modern Legal Positivism
- Hart's rule of recognition -> expanding on the idea of radicalism of positivist theory -> what needs to be changed within the law? -> critique