when the two clash with each other what do you think should win?
are you on the side of Legal Positivism? which basically says the law is what it is, or
Natural Law? which is more or less like an unjust law is not a law
Note: I'm hugely simplifying the two terms but look them up if you want a better understanding
On one of my classes we were discussing the Nuremberg Trails. The Nazi leaders were on trials for things they committed when it was their law to do so. and yet, they were charged for crimes against humanity because even though they were following the law, their "crimes" were still so grotesque that they had to go to trial as war criminals and on crimes against humanity. in that sense, morality overcame law. There was no precedent, and there was no law or something like this seen before. the attorneys kindda made it up as they went along.
do you think that was fair and that they should be held accountable, or they shouldn't have gone to trial because they were following the law
are you on the side of Legal Positivism? which basically says the law is what it is, or
Natural Law? which is more or less like an unjust law is not a law
Note: I'm hugely simplifying the two terms but look them up if you want a better understanding
On one of my classes we were discussing the Nuremberg Trails. The Nazi leaders were on trials for things they committed when it was their law to do so. and yet, they were charged for crimes against humanity because even though they were following the law, their "crimes" were still so grotesque that they had to go to trial as war criminals and on crimes against humanity. in that sense, morality overcame law. There was no precedent, and there was no law or something like this seen before. the attorneys kindda made it up as they went along.
do you think that was fair and that they should be held accountable, or they shouldn't have gone to trial because they were following the law
[CENTER]
[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]
The post was edited 3 times, last by Papa Bear ().