Josh and Colin are driving down the highway in Josh's new convertible. Josh steps on the gas and accelerates to 110 miles per ho
ur, almost double the 60 miles per hour speed limit. Colin urges Josh to slow down, saying, "The law is the law, and you should follow it even if you think it's unfair." Josh responds, "It's unjust to have a law about how fast people can drive their own cars. Let's see how fast I can go!" In this scenario, Josh and Colin's differing legal philosophies seem to adhere most closely to: a. natural law for Josh, and legal positivism for Colin.
b. legal positivism for Josh, and natural law for Colin.
c. legal realism for Josh, and legal positivism for Colin.
d. legal positivism for Josh, and legal realism for Colin.
a. natural law for Josh, and legal positivism for Colin.
Explanation:
Natural law is a concept that seeks to ground law in common sense, rationality, equity and pragmatism. It does not propose a description of human affairs through a formalized theory or law; Nor does it seek to reach the level of descriptive social science. Natural law has, as its project, to evaluate human options in order to act reasonably and well in the conception of the individual. Josh is using the concept of natural law when he believes, based on his own common sense conceptions, that it is correct for him to decide how fast he will have to ride his own car.
On the other hand, legal positivism refers to a set of norms formulated and enforced by human beings. These norms represent an order that must be followed even if it seems unfair and incorrect. This can be seen in Colin's argument that Josh must slow down the car because it is exceeding the speed allowed by law.
I would suggest asking a trusted adult or teacher or redoing the lesson. Cheating isn't a good path: you will not do well in the future if you always search for answers on the internet.
