Philosophy Of Law

Hello my future philosophers, how have you been? our topic for today under law category is Philosophy Of Law a.k.a Jurisprudence Or Legal Philosophy. In this class session, we will be discussing about the concept of philosophy in law, which means we will be talking about What Is Philosophy? What Is Law? And Theories on philosophy of law.

Philosophy of law

Philosophy Of Law

firstly let explain the meaning of philosophy and the meaning of law.

What Is Philosophy

Philosophy is the academic discipline which study the fundamental nature of life reality, existence and knowledge through a theory or postulate which guide the principle of behaviour.

What Is Law

Law can be define as a system of rules written and imposed by the government Or by the authority of a particular nation, society, country, or a community in order to regulate the activities of its members where the law is enforce by the imposition of penalties.

Philosophy Of Law Or Legal Philosophy

Jurisprudence is aspect of philosophy that explain the concept of law and legal system through essence of theories and postulates to explain human attitudes, values and relation to political science

Concept Of Jurisprudence

The Philosophy of Law when we think of law, and what law means to us as a society, we all have a good idea, or rather an innate sense, of what law is and the kind of things to expect. But trying to put an accurate definition on what law is is somewhat more of a difficult task. This very question lies at the heart of the study of jurisprudence, or legal philosophy. Since early civilisation, philosophers and thinkers have worked with a view to establishing a definitive meaning of what law is and where it fits in to the community.

Further Definition Of Philosophy Of Law

From these efforts have arisen major 'schools' of thought which demonstrate ideas and concepts distinct from one and other yet equally valid in their interpretations. When asked 'what is law?', most people will proffer an initial response along the lines of 'law is rules', or on a more complex level, 'law is the rules that regulate our behaviour'. This basic response is actually very valid, and true it forms the cornerstone of numerous schools of thought. However, posing slightly more probing questions raises doubts as to the validity of this statement, and casts doubt over a large consensus of lay-opinion on the matter.

Example On Philosophy Of Law

For example, if the law is a regulatory body of rules, then by itself it is useless. Rules alone can surely only set parameters at most, and can never seek to regulate independently. In order to provide this regulatory aspect, there is a requirement for something more; there is a requirement for enforcement, or coercion.

Consequence Of Law And Its Penalties

In our society, this is provided by the threat of sanctions like prison and fines. Therefore our traditional notion of law as 'rules' is deeply flawed: law must be more of an interaction between rules and a physical persuasion. In other words, we need some motivation to obey the law, partly as a consequence of our nature as human beings, to keep us within its boundaries and to keep up above its line of governance, therefore there is more required to offer an accurate description than this simple straightforward idea.

Public Behaviour To Law

Consider also this fundamental point in determining the nature of law at a conceptual level. If the law, as we see it, is a body of rules, in what sense do these rules operate, i.e. are the prescriptive (how one must behave), or descriptive (how the majority of society behave). If it is prescriptive, there would essentially be a requirement for every citizen to learn the law from a young age in order to ensure consistency with the proscriptive body of legislation.

If on the other hand it is descriptive of how society behaves, this raises the problem of authority: the way society behaves is not an objective concept, therefore why should any given person or body of people be afforded a subjective look at what is right and what is wrong? In a nation with strong fundamental freedoms, it is even more peculiar that the law is allowed to operate, if it were to operate in this sense.

Rather it would seem more appropriate to consider law as a relationship between people internally (with other people) and with the state, with an element of mutual consensus in achieving the relevant social ends.

References On Philosophy Of Law

From this basic analysis of the conceptual nature of law, it is obvious that there is scope for debate. So much so, legal scholars have for generations sought academic argumentation and competition with other writers. From Aristotle to Dworkin to HLA Hart and beyond, the concept of the nature of law is one which is both fascinating and complex, with many facets and caveats yet to be explored. In an international legal context, the study of jurisprudence transcends jurisdiction and specific legal training moving towards the realms of independent thought and observation. Nevertheless the nature of law is a popular academic study, as well as an interesting and thought provoking topic for the 'everyday' citizen subject to its governance.

We have come to the end of today's class session on philosophy of law, next class we will be discussing about other concept of law... don't forget write a comment, subscribe to our candidate list and also click the share button below - remember that, there is love in sharing.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.