Research Paper on:
Legal Positivism and the Philosophical Contribution of Hart

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
a morally neutral descriptive conception of law ("John," 2001). In Austins day as well as in the present time, natural law theory has been its primary opponent (2001). Natural law  is equivalent to moral standards which can justify and guide political authority and make legal rules binding (Honderich, 1995). It can also shape concept-formation in descriptive social theory (1995). While  the concept of natural law for the most part is rather broad and all encompassing, it is important to understand that different theorists have different ideas about the concept. For  example, it is said that those who have a sound, solid take on natural law are philosophers like Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas (1995). They see natural law as being reasonable  and that morality in some way makes sense (1995). Thus, natural laws basic premises suggest simple, common sense reasons for action and basic human good which are supposed to be  implemented through choice (1995). Prior to coming to his conclusions regarding positivism, Austin was intrigued with Benthams utilitarianism and there are  remnants of that in some of Austins work ("John," 2001). Still, it is legal positivism which he supports and that theory negates the idea that there are reasons for implementing  law beyond the idea of just maintaining law and order. Other supporters of positivism, who share Austins views to some extent, are Hobbes and Hume (2001). Austin is most famous  for legal positivism, something that has been condensed and described as follows: "The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. Whether it be or be  not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry. A law, which actually exists, is a law, though we happen