Why We Obey Law? Positivism v.

Naturalism

The major purpose of Jurisprudence is to know what the law is and to understand why we obey
law. The jurisprudence has always focused upon the nature and the source of law but the
question – i.e. Why do we obey law, remains debatable. What is the reason behind this, is it due
to fear of punishment or our inner conscience force us to obey the law. Is it the moral wrong or
right which force us to obey law, or it is the factor that make an act legal or illegal?

There exist several questions and answer of these question is also dynamic one. The answer of
such question depends on the fact that what you actually think the law is. Several authors try to
define law in various ways and as per their ideology the concept of law is divided into the school
of thoughts. The two major school of thoughts is the natural school and positive school.

Right from the time with the evolution of the two school jurisprudence, namely positivist and
naturalist, any interface between the two seems impossible. The divide among the school is the
result of the debate on the issue of how law came into existence and why we should obey the
law? There is a lack of systematic treatment of this issue that seems to divide the two competing
schools. The dispute was inevitable, analyzing the concept of both schools. Certainly, there are
valid arguments for both the side.

The notion of “is-ought” also plays an important role in this discourse. It is well established fact
that the law is obeyed as it is and not what it ought to be. This is the main idea behind the
positive school of law. Whereas, the natural law deals with the morality.

The concept of both positive law and natural law is discussed in details in the following
paragraphs.

Natural Law Theory