Law and Morality Today

Abstract

Four philosophies of law are compared and discussed in this paper: natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, ans neo-constitutionalism. Each of them is defined upon its answers to three questions: one regards objectivity or subjectivity of ethical (i.e. moral, political, legal) value judgements, another one refers to legal interpretation, and the main one to the relationships between law and morality. Natural Law is thus characterised by (i) ethical objectivism, (ii) interpretive formalism, and (iii) the idea that law and morality are necessarily connected. Positivism stands for (i) ethical subjectivism, (iii) mixed theory of legal interpretation, and (iii) the separability thesis. Legal realism – which is, to some extent, a mere radicalisation of positivistic views – is chacterised by (i) ethical subjectivism, (ii) interpretive scepticism, and (iii) the separation thesis. Neo-constitutionalism holds (i) ethical objectivism, (ii) interpretive formalism, and (iii) the view that law and morality are anyhow connected in a constitutional state (thus making the debate between natural law and positivism outdated). Each of the four philosophies of law is then articulated into its respective theoretical, methodological and ideological aspects. This is how the author points to certain similarities between the opposite standpoints, and to some plurality of views inside of every one of them. He stresses furthermore the challenges for particular views on law and morality with the final analysis of three interpretations of the separability thesis – given by inclusive, exclusive and normative positivists. The paper is published here in Italian original and in Slovenian translation.