Natural Law And Positive Law

Question One: Define natural law and positive law. What is the relationship between natural law and positive law? Natural law and positive law operate with similar intent yet have been developed separately, but in a manner in which they coexist. Positive law is the tangible system of “rules” in which society operates under. This form of rule abiding is set forth by two different branches, moral code and forms of law (Riddal, pg. 41). Moral obligation does not consist of a set punishing body when such rules are violated, but are subject to opposition from another party in the event of such code being breached, forcing pressure to conform. Such pressure is more explicitly present in legislative rules through various sanctions; heavily deterring

While the philosophers such as Plato were not deemed to be lawyers, their theories later set forth later developed with natural law (Riddall, pg. 59). Classical natural law theory was deemed skeptical by those believing many would value selfish means of natural desires to an extent in which others are disregarded, but philosophers such as Plato recognized the need for such principles to be moderated in order for natural responsibilities to occur a moral approach (Coleman, pg. 3). Such moderation sought by Plato was with the intent to legitimize legal orders on the account of their ethical principles. These desires or responsibilities are founded on natural, universal yearnings, demonstrating why such a foundation has proven to be so versatile in its use. The moral principles set forth through religion also played a major role in determining what was the appropriate standard as Christianity was such a dominant force in this age. This power was further applied by St Thomas Aquinas through his interpretations of living in a godly society, primarily how this involved man being at peace with one another, and allowing them to serve their religious inclinations. Aquinas favored law being for the “divine good” of society, and claimed that law that does not adhere to such principle is in fact, unjust, therefore invalid (Riddall,

One of the central developments was to establish what principles is shared by people of different faiths, as Christianity is not completely universal nor necessarily natural in all of its principles set forth. Grotius took part in initiating this development as he denounced the notion of universal Christianity, and suggested a better degree of validity would be possible under a less biased set of moral principle (Coleman, pg. 67). This development was found to be what is most “reasonable” for mankind by modern theorists such as John Finnis, yet branching from the notions set forth by prior theorists. Finnis’ theory operates in the absence of a divine figure, yet still holds a universal standard of what is “good.” This reasonable notion is further evaluated as moral principles are naturally embedded into human beings, and a particular system such as religion is not necessary to reflect such (Coleman, pg.