The following text discusses philosophy of law.
Legal positivism, associated with thinkers like H.L.A. Hart, holds that law is whatever legitimate authorities enact through proper procedures, regardless of moral content. This view separates the question "what is the law?" from "what should the law be?" Natural law theorists object that genuinely unjust edicts—laws mandating slavery, for example—lack legal validity despite proper enactment. The debate matters practically: if unjust laws are not "really" law, judges might refuse to enforce them; if they are, legal change requires different mechanisms.
What is the core disagreement between legal positivism and natural law theory?
Whether law requires proper enactment procedures
Whether moral content affects what counts as valid law
Whether judges should exist in legal systems
Whether written laws are preferable to customs
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Positivists hold law is valid "regardless of moral content," while natural law theorists argue "genuinely unjust edicts...lack legal validity."
- Evidence: Moral content irrelevant (positivism) vs. necessary (natural law).
- Reasoning: Whether morality determines validity is the dispute.
- Conclusion: Moral content's role in legal validity is the core issue.
Choice A is incorrect because both views accept procedural requirements. Choice C is incorrect because judicial existence isn't debated. Choice D is incorrect because written vs. unwritten isn't the issue.