lOMoARcPSD|3510918

Criticism on natural law Az

Jurisprudence I (Universiti Teknologi MARA)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Freya Mehmeen (freyamehmeen@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|3510918

Akmyr Ahmad Azwan

Kelsen’s Criticism on Natural Law

Natural law destroys the essential difference of scientific law of nature and rules of ethics
& morality. To say a man ought to behave in certain manner in accordance with pre-existing rule
is merely “value judgment” that is not imminent in natural reality.

The content of human law will eventually depends on its purpose, which subsequently
depends on what kind of society the law maker wishes it to be. For example, the freedom might
conflicts with the security. So, preference of any one of these can only be decided by emotional,
feelings, wishes of those in authority.

Doctrine of lex injusta non est lex (unlawful law is not a law at all) is just a presumption,
and not open to challenge. This is because, according to Grotius, the position of civil government
itself derives its authority from natural law, hence, the opposition to civil power can never be
justified. Therefore, it is contended by John Austin that natural law is nothing but a mere phrase
and theory.

There are different system of law, different system of morality, and one system of natural
law. Thus, what is ‘morally’ right for one system might not be good for another. Thus, it is not
universal.

Despite the flaws of natural law, it still attracts the people to it because it feeds the need
of society for justification as it gives the law dignity of truth, regardless of how artificial it is.

Downloaded by Freya Mehmeen (freyamehmeen@gmail.com)