From Ancient Greece to today, the issue of natural law and positive law has occupied the attention and reflection of philosophers, lawyers and political scientists. The debate involves two aspects: first, what is the concept of natural law and, second, what right is more important and therefore which of them should prevail over the other.
For the monist, no doubt, or accept the hegemony of one or accept the other right. Paraaquellos considered equivalent to those rights (positive law and natural law), the problem would arise in case of any conflict between its rules and, anyway, again given the monistic approach to having to decide which law should apply.
Details
Positive law is the law of the state that is developed through the legislative bodies which corresponds to a particular society and a tiempodeterminado. The obligatory link is what gives this character right place. For juspositivistas, this is the only law that exists, “Right,” there is no more.
Natural law, according to its advocates say, is the right part of the very nature of man and, therefore, is always the same, no matter the diversity of countries and cultures and over time. However, there has been no match in the authors’ concepts of what constitutes “human nature.”
The Greek meant by nature Callicles health, strength and vigor of men and the weakness of others, was therefore only natural that the strong and healthy were imposed on the weak and thus the natural law should be the strongest expression . For his part, Aristotle thought that human nature was rational and that was almost exclusive attribute of the Greek people, so naturally the law was to translate this superiority of Greek over the barbarian and thus, the philosopher “justified” legalization of slavery.
Thesis could continue listing, opinions and find schools of thought and pluralism and diversity. Should we give up, therefore any attempt to clarify and define (Meaning of positive law and natural law) the natural right to stay in positive law as the only one?
Recent Articles