'NATURAL LAW' versus 'POSITIVE LAW' debate centers on:

Question

Accepted Answer

C. whether LAW MUST BE MORALLY VALID to be law (natural law: 'unjust law is no law'); or LAW IS A SOCIAL FACT separable from morality (positivism); the foundational metaethical question of jurisprudence

1. The NATURAL LAW vs POSITIVE LAW DEBATE is the foundational metaethical question of jurisprudence.
2. NATURAL LAW position:
3. (i) Law must have MORAL VALIDITY;
4. (ii) 'UNJUST LAW IS NO LAW' (Augustine, Aquinas — lex injusta non est lex);
5. (iii) Standards of justice are objective, accessible to reason;
6. (iv) Key thinkers: Aquinas, Grotius, Locke, Finnis, Fuller.
7. POSITIVISM position:
8. (i) Law is a SOCIAL FACT, identifiable by SOURCES (rule of recognition);
9. (ii) Law and morality are SEPARABLE — what law IS vs what law OUGHT to be;
10. (iii) A morally bad law may still be a valid law;
11. (iv) Key thinkers: Bentham, Austin, Kelsen, Hart, Raz.
12. KEY DEBATES:
13. (i) HART-FULLER DEBATE (1958, Harvard Law Review) — informer cases under Nazi law;
14. (ii) HART-DEVLIN DEBATE (1959) — enforcement of morality;
15. (iii) Hart-Dworkin debate (1977 onwards) — rules vs principles.
16. INDIAN APPLICATIONS: basic structure doctrine has moral underpinnings; constitutional morality; Vishaka guidelines bridging gaps.
17. Hence option B is correct.
_Source: Legal Research Methodology + Jurisprudence — Natural Law vs Positivism debate_

Answer

only methodology (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate)

Answer

only sources (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate)

Answer

only customs (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate) (cf. Natural Law vs Positivism debate)