PHILOSOPHY

OF
LAW
Submitted to:
Atty. Jose Riodil Montebon
Submitted by:
Kyle Almero
Kairos Le Lasta
Date of Submission:
June 28, 2013
The Positivist School
Positivism Dened
According to Frenc !ociologist and "iloso#er and te one $o
coined te doctrine o% #ositi&ism Auguste 'omte (1)*8 + 18,)-, tere are
tree #rogressi&e #ases $ic a society go troug in its .uest %or trut/
theolo!ical($ere e&eryting is re%erenced to 0od, and te di&ine $ill
subsumes uman rigts-, meta"hysical(te #ost+1nligtenment umanist
#eriod, $ere te uni&ersal rigts o% umanity are most im#ortant-2 and te
#ositi&e (te 3nal scienti3c stage, $ere indi&idual rigts are more im#ortant
tan te rule o% any one #erson- and "ositive.
"ositi&ism is a &ie$ tat te only autentic 4no$ledge is scienti3c
4no$ledge, and tat suc 4no$ledge can only come %rom #ositi&e a5rmation
o% teories troug strict scienti3c metod (tecni.ues %or in&estigating
#enomena based on gatering obser&able, em#irical and measurable
e&idence, sub6ect to s#eci3c #rinci#les o% reasoning-
7ne ty#e o% #ositi&ism is te le!al "ositivism. 8t is a scool o% tougt
in "iloso#y o% La$ $ic olds tat la$s are rules made ($eter
deliberately or unintentionally- by uman beings, and tat tere is no
inerent or necessary connection bet$een te &alidity conditions o% la$ and
1tics or morality. 8t stands in o##osition to te conce#t o% natural la$ (tat
tere is an essential connection bet$een la$ and 6ustice or morality-.
1
Legal
#ositi&ism tere%ore se#arates la$ and morality.
Legal "ositi&ism $as #o#ulari9ed by Jon Austinby %ormulating te 3rst
systematic alternati&e to bot natural la$ teories o% la$ and
utilitariana##roaces to la$. (:entam and Mill $ere utilitarians, ad&ancing
te &ie$ tat tere sould be ase#aration bet$een la$ and morality, and
tat la$ sould be about ma;imi9ing utility, or #ersonal#leasure or #ain, and
te e<ect or $isdom o% a #articular #olicy could be calculated by
addingtogeter all te #leasure and subtracting all te #ain it brougt
e&eryone.-
2
8t set out to describe what law is in terms o% $at umans
posited it was.
Histo#y of Positivism
=racing bac4 istory, it $as >obbes and >ume $om $e can say tat
te conce#t rooted %rom teir idea but it $as Jeremy :entam (1)?8+1832-
$o %ully elaborated te idea. And ten came Jon Austin (1)*0+18,*- $o
modi3ed and #o#ulari9ed te doctrine. 7ter signi3cant #ro#onents o% te
#ositi&ist scool o% tougt include >ans Kelsen and also =omas >obbes.
$OH% A&STI%
1
@=e :asics o% "iloso#yA, tt#/BB$$$.#iloso#ybasics.comBbrancC#ositi&ism.tml.
Retrie&ed June 2), 2013.
2
@!ummary o% Jon AustinAs Legal "ositi&ismA,
tt#/BB$$$2.la$.columbia.eduB%acultyC%ran4eB'L=B!ummaryD20o%D20JonD20Austins
D20LegalD20"ositi&ism.#d%.Retrie&ed June 2), 2013.
Jon Austin (1)*0 + 18,*- is considered by many to be te creator o%
te scool o% analytical 6uris#rudence and te a##roac to la$ 4no$n as
Elegal #ositi&ismF. AustinGs #articular command teory o% la$ as been
sub6ect to #er&asi&e criticism, but its sim#licity gi&es it an e&ocati&e #o$er
tat continues to attract aderents.
3

Jon Austin is best 4no$n %or is $or4 de&elo#ing te teory o% legal
#ositi&ism. >e attem#ted to clearly se#arate moral rules %rom H#ositi&e la$F.
Austin too4 a #ositi&ist a##roac to 6uris#rudence and &ie$ed te la$ as
commands %rom a so&ereign tat are bac4ed by a treat o% sanction. 8n
determining Ga so&ereignG, Austin recogni9ed it as one $ic society obeys
abitually.
?
8n is teory, e ad&ocated tat la$ is ob6ecti&e, autoritati&e,
commanding, and em#irical. 8t is te e;#ression o% te $ill o% te state.
Iatural la$ and moral la$ do not matter. La$ is not a moral conce#t. 8t must
be %ree %rom meta#ysical s#eculation. 8t is not made by 0od but by a
su#erior so&ereign. La$ is te conscious $ill and command o% te so&ereign
im#osed on te sub6ects, $o are liable to su<er #enalties in case o%
&iolation tereo% (autoritati&e en%orcement system-.
,
HA%S '(LS(%
3
tt#/BB#lato.stan%ord.eduBentriesBaustin+6onB.Retrie&ed June 2), 2013.
?
tt#/BB$$$.armyinstituteoJa$.orgB#ages.##KidL10. Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
,
tt#/BB$$$2.la$.columbia.eduB%acultyC%ran4eB'L=B!ummaryD20o%D20JonD20Austins
D20LegalD20"ositi&ism.#d%. Retrie&ed June 2), 2013.
>ans Kelsen (1881M1*)3-, an Austrian 6urist and #iloso#er,
introduced te idea o% te "ure =eory o% La$. >e suggested a @#ureA teory
o% la$ $ic $ould a&oid reductionism o% any 4ind. =e 6uris#rudence Kelsen
#ro#ounded Ecaracteri9es itsel% as a @#ureA teory o% la$ because it aims at
cognition %ocused on te la$ aloneF, and tis #urity ser&es as its Ebasic
metodological #rinci#leF.
N
8n tis teory a legal system is made o% a ierarcy o% norms. 1ac
norm is deri&ed %rom its su#erior norm. =e ultimate norm %rom $ic e&ery
legal norm deduces its &alidity is te 0rundnorm, te igest basic norm.
=e 0rundnorm is not deduced %rom anyting else but is assumed as an
initial y#otesis. A norm is a &alid legal norm only because it as been
created according to a de3nite rule.
=e teory is inde#endent o% morality. 8t does not matter $ic
#articular 0rundnorm is ado#ted by a legal order. All tat matters is tat tis
basic norm as a minimum e<ecti&eness/ it must command a certain amount
o% obedience, since te e<ecti&eness o% te total legal order is necessary %or
te &alidity o% its norms.
)
La$ ten is created by te acts o% men, and not by 0od. For la$ to be
stable, it must be based on em#irical science, not meta#ysics. La$ is a
#ositi&e norm o% conduct2 ence, it is uni%orm %or all. 'oercion and sanctions
N
@>ans Kelsen and >is "ure =eory o% La$A,
tt#/BBscolarsi#.la$.ber4eley.eduBcgiB&ie$content.cgiK
articleL3?2)Oconte;tLcali%orniala$re&ie$. Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
)
tt#/BBlegal+dictionary.te%reedictionary.comBKelsen,P>ans. Retrie&ed June 2), 2013.
en%orce la$. 8n is H#ure teory o% la$,H Kelsen argued te remo&al o% moral
connotations and &alue 6udgments %rom la$, tat is, o% all non+legal
elements. 8n is #ure teory o% la$, te %ocus is on Hte la$ as it isH, not on
$at it ougt to be. La$ is ob6ecti&e and #recise, not sub6ecti&e.
8
THO)AS HO**(S
=omas >obbes (1,88M1N)*-, $ose current re#utation rests largely
on is #olitical #iloso#y, $as a tin4er $it $ide+ranging interests. >e
&ie$ed go&ernment #rimarily as a de&ice %or ensuring collecti&e security.
"olitical autority is 6usti3ed by a y#otetical social contract among te
many tat &ests in a so&ereign #erson or entity te res#onsibility %or te
sa%ety and $ell+being o% all. 8n meta#ysics, >obbes de%ended materialism,
te &ie$ tat only material tings are real.
*
According to >obbesGs analysis, all but absolute go&ernments are
systematically #rone to dissolution into ci&il $ar, #eo#le ougt to submit
temsel&es to an absolute #olitical autority. 'ontinued stability $ill re.uire
tat tey also re%rain %rom te sorts o% actions tat migt undermine suc a
regime. For e;am#le, sub6ects sould not dis#ute te so&ereign #o$er and
under no circumstances sould tey rebel. 8n general, >obbes aimed to
demonstrate te reci#rocal relationsi# bet$een #olitical obedience and
#eace.
8
@1ncyclo#edia :ritannicaA, tt#/BB$$$.britannica.comB1:cec4edBto#icB31?,1?B>ans+Kelsen.
Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
*
@1ncyclo#edia :ritannicaA, tt#/BBglobal.britannica.comB1:cec4edBto#icB2N8??8B=omas+
>obbes.Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
As >obbes calls it, te state o% nature is a state o% $ar. =e rigt o%
eac to all tings in&ites serious conJict, es#ecially i% tere is com#etition %or
resources, as tere $ill surely be o&er at least scarce goods suc as te most
desirable lands, s#ouses, etc. "eo#le $ill .uite naturally %ear tat oters may
(citing te rigt o% nature- in&ade tem, and may rationally #lan to stri4e 3rst
as an antici#atory de%ense. 'onJict $ill be %urter %ueled by disagreement in
religious &ie$s, in moral 6udgments, and o&er matters as mundane as $at
goods one actually needs, and $at res#ect one #ro#erly merits. >obbes
imagines a state o% nature in $ic eac #erson is %ree to decide %or ersel%
$at se needs, $at seGs o$ed, $atGs res#ect%ul, rigt, #ious, #rudent,
and also %ree to decide all o% tese .uestions %or te bea&ior o% e&eryone
else as $ell, and to act on er 6udgments as se tin4s best, en%orcing er
&ie$s $ere se can. 8n tis situation $ere tere is no common autority to
resol&e tese many and serious dis#utes, $e can easily imagine $it >obbes
tat te state o% nature $ould indeed become a Estate o% $arF, e&en $orse,
a $ar o% Eall against allF.
10
I)PO+TA%T ,O)PO%(%TS OF POSITI-IS)
I. ,ommand Theo#y of La/ of the Pedi!#ee Thesis
7n AustinGs &ie$, a rule R is legally &alid (i.e., is a la$- in a society ! i%
and only i% R is commanded by te so&ereign in ! andis bac4ed u# $it te
10
@!tan%ord 1ncyclo#edia o% "iloso#yA, tt#/BB#lato.stan%ord.eduBentriesBobbes+
moralB.Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
treat o% a sanction.
11
La$ tere%ore is $at it is de3ned by te di<erent
brances o% te go&ernment regardless o% $eter it o<ends one. 8t is a %orm
o% analytic 6uris#rudence in so %ar as it is concerned $it #ro&iding necessary
and su5cient conditions %or te e;istence o% la$ tat distinguises la$
%romnon+la$ in e&ery #ossible $orld. =us, since rules im#lemented by te
legislature are bac4ed u# by sanctions %or noncom#liance, ence te #ositi&e
la$.
II. The Se"a#ability Thesis
8n its conte;t it is tis tesis a&o$s tat la$ and morality are t$o
conce#tually di<erent and distinct. =o sim#ly state, tere are boundaries
bet$een tese t$o conce#ts. >art identi3es legal #ositi&ism $it Ete sim#le
contention tat it is no sense a necessary trut tat la$s re#roduce or satis%y
certain demands o% morality, toug in %act tey a&e o%ten done soF (1**?,
##. 18,+8N-. 8t is consistent $it all o% te %ollo$ing/
moral #rinci#les are #art o% te la$2
la$ is usually, or e&en al$ays in %act, &aluable2
te best e;#lanation %or te content o% a societyGs la$s includes
re%erence to te moral ideals current in tat society2 and
a legal system cannot sur&i&e unless it is seen to be, and tus in
some measure actually is, 6ust.
12
Inclusive vs. (0clusive Positivism
11
@8nternet 1ncyclo#edia o% "iloso#yA, tt#/BB$$$.ie#.utm.eduBlegal#osBQ>3. Retrie&ed
June 2), 2013.
12
@!tan%ord 1ncyclo#edia o% "iloso#yF, tt#/BB#lato.stan%ord.eduBentriesBlegal+#ositi&ismB.
Retrie&ed June 28, 2013.
According to inclusi&e #ositi&ism (also 4no$n as incor#orationism and
so%t #ositi&ism-, it is #ossible %or a societyAs rule o% recognition to incor#orate
moral constraints on te content o% la$.
8n contrast, e;clusi&e #ositi&ism (also called ard #ositi&ism- denies
tat a legal system can incor#orate moral constraints on legal &alidity.
13
III. Disc#etion Thesis
R$or4in distinguises tree di<erent senses in $ic a 6udge migt be
said to a&e discretion/ (1- a 6udge as discretion $en se e;ercises
6udgment in a##lying a legal standard to a #articular case2 (2- a 6udge as
discretion $en er decision is not sub6ect to re&ersal by any oter autority2
and (3- a 6udge as discretion $en er decision is not bound by any legal
standards.
1?
13
@8nternet 1ncyclo#edia o% "iloso#yF, tt#/BB$$$.ie#.utm.eduBlegal#osBQ>2. Retrie&ed
June 28, 2013.
1?
@8nternet 1ncyclo#edia o% "iloso#yF, tt#/BB$$$.ie#.utm.eduBlegal#osBQ>2. Retrie&ed
June 28, 2013.