John Austin Research Paper
John Austin was a legal positivist from the nineteenth century who constructed what is known as the command theory, which was the idea that the laws were nothing more than a command that “obliges a person or persons to a course of conduct” and a lack of compliance would require said people to receive a punishment (Austin 51).
Additionally, Austin believed that the law and morality were separate, and to discuss the idea of what laws should be does not take away from the fact they are still laws (52). While I believe that the principle idea of Austin’s theory is potentially viable in the idea that people do obey certain laws for fear of fines or imprisonment, and that a person or group in power governs the laws. I however, cannot agree unconditionally …show more content…
While I disagree that laws should not be followed so blindly, I would also argue that just because a law is void of certain morality does necessarily make the law void. Instead, laws lacking basic morality should send a signal to people within the community, city, or state to raise their awareness that such laws are flawed. It is then that people collectively should to take action to force the government to block or repeal laws that are found to be grounded in repugnance and to ultimately instill a change that will be beneficial to all. However, it is also difficult to deny the fact that faced with any punishment, especially with increased severity that a person may choose to oblige the law even if it goes against their morals. But even faced with a harsh punishment, I believe there would be a far greater imprisonment to a person’s conscience by choosing to ignore a sense of basic morality. Going back to the idea I presented earlier from Aquinas that people have the ability to reason to understand basic human principles that are either right or wrong (2). If we know the actions we engage in are wrong, but we continue with them regardless it will stay locked in our minds. An example of when laws should be fought against for not being in accordance with morals comes from King Jr. and the battle against segregation laws. He stated, “ So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong” (3). Therefore, as explained by Hart a law that is promulgated and enforced remains a law by definition. However, it is the right of the people to hold those laws accountable to a certain moral standard and to question their validity if they begin to stray outside of that standard (617). The framework I have just outlined is one I believe is more consistent with the way many
Additionally, Austin believed that the law and morality were separate, and to discuss the idea of what laws should be does not take away from the fact they are still laws (52). While I believe that the principle idea of Austin’s theory is potentially viable in the idea that people do obey certain laws for fear of fines or imprisonment, and that a person or group in power governs the laws. I however, cannot agree unconditionally …show more content…
While I disagree that laws should not be followed so blindly, I would also argue that just because a law is void of certain morality does necessarily make the law void. Instead, laws lacking basic morality should send a signal to people within the community, city, or state to raise their awareness that such laws are flawed. It is then that people collectively should to take action to force the government to block or repeal laws that are found to be grounded in repugnance and to ultimately instill a change that will be beneficial to all. However, it is also difficult to deny the fact that faced with any punishment, especially with increased severity that a person may choose to oblige the law even if it goes against their morals. But even faced with a harsh punishment, I believe there would be a far greater imprisonment to a person’s conscience by choosing to ignore a sense of basic morality. Going back to the idea I presented earlier from Aquinas that people have the ability to reason to understand basic human principles that are either right or wrong (2). If we know the actions we engage in are wrong, but we continue with them regardless it will stay locked in our minds. An example of when laws should be fought against for not being in accordance with morals comes from King Jr. and the battle against segregation laws. He stated, “ So I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court because it is morally right, and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong” (3). Therefore, as explained by Hart a law that is promulgated and enforced remains a law by definition. However, it is the right of the people to hold those laws accountable to a certain moral standard and to question their validity if they begin to stray outside of that standard (617). The framework I have just outlined is one I believe is more consistent with the way many