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

Question

Accepted Answer

C.

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_