Practice question · Multiple choice
Legal positivism insists upon separating what the law is from what it ought to be. What practical consequence follows from this division when a citizen faces an overtly wicked statute?
Hints
- Does establishing that a rule is valid law automatically settle whether you ought to obey it?
- How does distinguishing descriptive facts from moral duties prevent blind submission to authority?
Show the answer
B. She recognizes its validity whilst deciding whether conscience permits obedience
Why
Confusing positivism with quietism ignores that validity does not settle moral duty. Nor does positivism adopt Radbruch's threshold of intolerable injustice. Separating the inquiries enables unclouded moral scrutiny, leaving the ethical decision to resist entirely with the individual citizen.
Practise Law, Morality, Custom and Force
The app has 5 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Law I is free to start.
More questions on Law, Morality, Custom and Force
- Hart held that a sufficiently unjust rule is, for that reason, not a legal rule at all.
- Arrange these contributions to the debate about law and morality in chronological order.
- Which are true of the separability thesis?
- Complete the account of the border between law and its neighbours.
- How many requirements does Fuller's internal morality of law contain?
- Arrange these positions from the strongest claim about a connection between law and morality to the weakest.
- The Wolfenden Report recommended in 1957 that private consensual homosexual conduct between adults cease to…
- Austin's command theory cannot account for rules that confer powers, such as those governing how to make a…