Legal Definitions - positivist jurisprudence

Positivist jurisprudence is a school of thought in legal philosophy that focuses on understanding law as it *is*, rather than what it *ought to be*. This approach argues that the validity of a law comes from its source and the way it was created, rather than from its moral content or perceived justice. For legal positivists, a law is legitimate if it was enacted by the proper authority following established procedures, regardless of whether individuals or groups believe it to be morally good or fair. It essentially separates the question of whether a rule is a valid law from the question of whether that law is morally justifiable.

Here are some examples to illustrate positivist jurisprudence:

• Imagine a city council passes a new ordinance requiring all businesses to close by 10 PM on weekdays. Even if some business owners or residents believe this law is economically harmful or an infringement on personal liberty, a positivist perspective would recognize it as a valid law. This is because it was enacted by the legitimate legislative body (the city council) following the prescribed legal procedures for creating ordinances. The law's validity stems from its proper creation by an authorized source, not from its popularity or perceived fairness.

• Consider a national legislature that passes a new tax law increasing the rate on certain goods. Citizens might debate whether this tax is fair, whether it will stimulate or harm the economy, or if it disproportionately affects certain groups. However, from a positivist viewpoint, the tax law is legally binding and valid because it was passed by the democratically elected legislative body, signed into law by the executive, and followed all constitutional requirements for its enactment. Its legal status is determined by these social facts of its creation, independent of any moral judgments about its impact.

• Suppose a country's highest court issues a landmark ruling that reinterprets a long-standing statute, thereby changing how certain contracts are enforced. While legal scholars and the public might intensely debate the wisdom or moral implications of this new interpretation, a positivist would acknowledge it as part of the law. The ruling becomes legally binding because it was issued by the supreme judicial authority, which has the recognized power to interpret and apply the law, following established judicial processes. The focus is on the institutional source and the procedural correctness of the decision, rather than its moral alignment with societal values.