PHILOSOPHY OF LAW: Matrix of Major Philosophy
Core Principles Objections
Natural Law Theory 1. Natural Law Theory conflates that
which is the case with that which ought to
be the case. One cannot logically derive a
moral imperative or value judgment
simply by observing facts of nature.
Natural Law theorists often argue, for
example, that because God’s laws (and
laws of nature in this case) dictate the
purpose of sexual intercourse is
reproduction, it is unnatural and
thus, immoral to have sex for any other
purpose.
2. The second argument against Natural
Law Theory is the theory’s assumption
that moral principles are written in the
laws of nature (or by God). Modern
science contradicts this assumption. The
scientific perspective sees only cause and
effect in the natural world; morals and
values, it claims, are inventions of the
human mind. From this worldview, the
continued use of Natural Law Theory in
Answer to Objections
1. The fallaciousness of this reasoning is
especially obvious when we consider
natural tendencies which, are seemingly
irreconcilable with ethical behavior. For
example, if one concedes that it is natural
for human beings to care for themselves
before strangers, then one must also
accept that this ought to be the case, that
selfishness is acceptable.
2. In response to arguments from science,
the Church may defer to the maxim
“absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.” In other words, it does not
necessarily follow that if science cannot
detect moral laws in the natural world,
then they do not in fact exist. Though it
would be a fallacy still to conclude that
they do exist because their inexistence
cannot be proven (known as the
“Argument from Ignorance”), this
argument opens room for faith, with
which the Church is ultimately concerned.
 the Catholic Church (where it is most
prominent) is a holdover from Medieval
thought.

Legal Positivism
a. Conventionality Thesis To explain the existence conditions of The claim that legal authority is made
legal authority in terms of a rule of possible by a specific set of conventional
recognition whose existence condition social practice is still valid because after
depends on the behaviour of ‘officials’ is, all, we only follow persons in authority.
in the end, to explain law in terms of law. We value leadership and sometimes being
tough and high-handed especially
considering implementation of rules.
b. Social Fact Thesis In making internal legal judgments, we When sovereign leaders or authority
commit to act according to some norms or makes a law, even if initially based on
principles. It follows that the existence of a values, the moment they accept it and
law or the legal validity of a norm is make it as a rule, we accept it as a social
ultimately a normative, rather than a fact which is based on social psychology of
factual, matter. the behavior of people. From normative,
we decide to make it factual by being
common public standards.
c. Separability Thesis Too much reliance or hard stance on That there are conflicting views on
separability of natural law from morality, whether there are possible legal systems
presents a situation wherein as a with such moral constraints. However,
consequence, inadequately appreciated exclusive positivists argue that such
are other philosophically important ways amendments can require judges to
in which law and morality are or might be consider moral standards in certain
connected with one another. circumstances, but cannot incorporate

Ronald Dworkin’s Third Theory For Dworkin, in most hard cases there are It is nevertheless possible for any judge to
right answers to be hunted by reason and confront fresh and challenging issues as a
imagination because there are on
precedents yet which his theory relies to
have integrity. As a consequence of this
conception of law, lawyers are invited to
search for an answer in legal materials
using reasons and imagination to
determine the best way to interpret legal
data. It is therefore possible for lawyers to
confront fresh and challenging issues as a
matter of principle, and this is what law as
integrity demands of him.
Submitted by: Ryan Nelson M. Dela Torre, 1st yr. LLB-PSU
those standards into the law. When a
judge makes reference to moral
considerations in deciding a case, she
necessarily creates new law on an issue-
and this is so even when the law directs
her to consider moral considerations, as
the Bill of Rights does in certain
circumstances. On this view, all law is
settled law and questions of settled law
can be resolved without recourse to moral
arguments:
matter of principle, and this is what law as
integrity demands of him. It is still based
on historical facts, discernible thru logical
interpretations.
Submitted to: Atty. Julius M. Concepcion