Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:24:19.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On a Bill of Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 1969

R. N. McLaughlin
Affiliation:
Don Mills, Ontario

Extract

Writers on jurisprudence often stress that conflict between positive laws and morality does not invalidate the positive laws. A law which requires me to compensate another for an injury caused by a dangerous object kept on my property is not invalidated by the fact that I have not been negligent and have no moral obligation to compensate the injured person. And although I have a moral obligation to keep my promises, positive laws may validly imply that I need not keep promises not made for a consideration or under seal. Thus positive law may permit acts not permitted by morals and may forbid acts permitted by morals. The lesson drawn from these thoughts is that to establish a positive law as valid we need not consider the relationships it bears to the rules of morals. A valid law is simply a law created in accordance with the constitutional conventions or ‘rules of recognition’ of the society in which it is to be applied. It is the manner of its establishment, not its relationship to morals, which makes a law valid.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Hans Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State, pp. 374–76.

2 H. L. A. Hart, The Concept of Law, pp. 195–207.