Overview
This lecture provides a foundational overview of legal philosophy, focusing on its presuppositions, relationship to ethics and politics, distinctions from natural sciences, and a critical analysis of legal positivism versus natural law theory.
Introduction to Legal Philosophy
- Legal philosophy examines fundamental legal questions like the authority of law, its relationship to justice, and the maker of laws.
- Before studying legal philosophy, two presuppositions are necessary: realism about reality and a certain view of human nature.
Key Presuppositions
- Realism: Affirms a reality outside the mind, with a determinate and intelligible structure, knowable and independent of perception.
- Human Nature: Humanity has a specific, determinate nature, with cognitive faculties suited for understanding reality, including reasoning and perception.
Nature and Origin of the State
- Debate exists whether the state is “natural” (Aristotle) or “conventional” (Hobbes).
- Human society is both naturally founded (due to social nature) and conventionally constituted (via rational decisions).
- Unlike social insects, humans use reason and free will to create political societies.
Social Sciences vs. Natural Sciences
- Natural sciences study entities that change in regular, natural ways.
- Social sciences study entities (like law or politics) that are partly natural and partly conventional, making their knowledge historical and context-dependent.
Law, Ethics, and Politics
- Law is an aspect of politics; both ethics and politics form a unity, distinguished only analytically.
- Ethics concerns human perfection as rational beings; politics concerns perfection as social beings.
- Law's function is to facilitate both individual good and the common good (as seen in Aristotle’s works).
Natural Law vs. Legal Positivism
- Natural law: Law is rooted in human nature and aims at the common good and justice; laws derive legitimacy from principles of natural justice.
- Legal positivism: Denies natural law; law is seen as entirely conventional, deriving authority from state enactment, not moral principles.
Critique of Legal Positivism
- Positivism denies metaphysics and regards law as solely a product of human convention.
- It conflates social and natural sciences, overlooking key differences.
- Positivism leads to issues like inability to distinguish between morally right and merely legal acts, no basis for natural rights, and reliance on power rather than justice.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Realism — The belief in a reality that exists independently of our minds.
- Natural Law — Law based on inherent human nature and universal moral principles.
- Legal Positivism — The view that law's authority comes solely from enacted rules, independent of morality.
- Common Good — The benefit or interests of all involved in society.
- Natural vs. Conventional — Natural arises from inherent traits; conventional is established by human agreement.
- Mala in se — Acts wrong in themselves (e.g., murder).
- Mala prohibita — Acts wrong because prohibited by law (e.g., driving rules).
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review distinctions between natural law and legal positivism for deeper understanding.
- Reflect on the relationship between law, ethics, and politics as described.
- Prepare to analyze real-life laws through both philosophical perspectives.
Aristotle would likely view Henry’s initial path to law school as lacking in true virtue and thus not conducive to the good life. According to Aristotle, the good life is achieved through the actualization of one’s rational and moral virtues, leading to eudaimonia—often translated as flourishing or happiness. Henry’s attendance at law school was motivated by external pressures and financial considerations rather than an internal commitment to the virtues associated with law or a genuine pursuit of excellence in that field. His unhappiness and eventual departure from law to pursue poetry suggest that he was not living in accordance with his true nature or exercising practical wisdom (phronesis) in his choices. Aristotle would argue that virtue involves acting for its own sake and in accordance with reason, not merely as a means to an end such as wealth or parental approval.
Henry was not virtuous in his reasons for attending law school because his motivation was external compulsion rather than an internal desire to cultivate the virtues relevant to the legal profession or to live a life aligned with his rational nature. Virtue-based ethics emphasizes that actions must be chosen knowingly, for their own sake, and from a stable character. Henry’s eventual decision to leave law and embrace poetry reflects a move toward authenticity and the actualization of his true self, which Aristotle would see as a step toward the good life.
In contrast, Sue’s motivation to attend law school and her enthusiasm for the work exemplify virtue-based ethics more closely. Sue acts from an internal desire aligned with her rational nature and the virtues of diligence, courage, and practical wisdom. She pursues law not as a means to an external reward but because it is a fulfilling and worthwhile activity in itself. According to Aristotle, happiness arises when one performs virtuous activities for their own sake, so Sue’s path is more likely to lead to eudaimonia than Henry’s initial path. The advice to Henry, based on Aristotle’s ethics, would be to seek a life where his actions express his true nature and virtues, choosing activities that he values intrinsically rather than for external rewards or pressures. Only then can he achieve genuine happiness and live the good life.