Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man and it can only be find through human reasoning alone. There are many philosophers who followed this theory like Plato, Aristotle and john Locke.
Plato’s theory:
Plato states that nature is inherently good so all laws should belong to the natural laws. Most basic law is doing well and avoid evil. Purpose of law is to live a good life. He believed that man
…show more content…
Positivist says that there is no obligation to follow a law morally. But in some cases for example (MURDER) it is good to obey law due to its moral content. Another place where it is good to follow law is to solve a coordination problem for example (driving on your right side). In most of the cases our own moral judgements helps us in deciding to obey law or not. The main issue here is how we should view the law morally, whether law in itself is generally a good thing? In some case there are some facts which work against law. So does it imply that law is wrong? There are some arguments related to this theory: The Gratitude Argument: We have to obey the law because we are obligated to be grateful to the government because of the good things it does for us, and obeying the law is the best way of showing our gratitude. The Argument from Fair Play: When a person receives a benefit or reward or some other thing from industry, whose success depends on the obedience to its rules and regulation, and that obedience involves some sacrifice, and he intends to continue receiving awards, the he just obeys the rules of the company no matter how morally correct or incorrect are these