Changes

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.

Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that morality is not based on law.

Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that law is not based on morality.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.  

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.