Although there is debate over the various schools of jurisprudence, not all options are of equal merit. In that the law is meant to offer protection and to guide society, not all philosophies can best achieve this desired outcome. To have a just legal system, laws must be based on absolute principles that provide clarity in the prescribed rules to follow, as well as justice in the result of following the laws. Therefore, the natural law school best provides for the maintenance of law, order, and justice in society. One advantage of the natural law school is the acknowledgment of the black-and-white nature of legal issues. When someone commits a crime and harms another, one party is wrong and the other is harmed because of the wrong. Certain actions, such as murder, are simply wrong acts that are never permissible. The natural law school of jurisprudence readily recognizes moral absolutes and seeks to create a legal system around these absolutes, ultimately strengthening the resulting laws. Good and evil exist, and natural law sides with the good against the evil. The basis in moral absolutes grounds natural law in the pursuit of the right and the good. These moral absolutes exist and are available to those who study and think about what is right and just. People, by considering these moral absolutes, can come upon the naturally right code of conduct, and make laws to ensure that people will live up to this naturally right code of conduct. No other school of jurisprudence adequately tells people the proper way to conduct their lives. After all, the role of the law is to maintain peace and justice in society by creating the laws that best channel people toward following right actions and avoiding wrong actions. Only an application of natural law jurisprudence can guide society for the good of all. In addition to prescribing proper conduct for citizens, law grounded in moral absolutes can avoid subjective approaches to laws. A quick review of almost any legal issue will demonstrate that judges and lawyers do not always agree upon what a law means. When laws are firmly grounded in moral absolutes, however, the subjective element of the law is removed. No longer would judges need to ponder over what a law means and when it applies. Instead, judges would have to look at the law and determine the relevant moral truth the law upholds or on which the law is based. By enforcing the moral absolutes underlying the law, judges would no longer apply their subjective beliefs to laws, and instead would create a more consistent and predictable legal system.
1. How would you frame the issue and conclusion of this essay?
2. What is the primary ethical norm underlying the author’s argument?
3. Does the argument contain significant ambiguity in the reasoning? Clue: Which word or phrases could have multiple meanings, where changing the meaning used either strengthens or weakens the argument?
4. Write an essay that someone who holds an opinion opposite to that of the essay author might write. Clue: How might reasonable people disagree with the author’s conclusion?