Question

Ensayo sobre tu posición entre el iunaturalismo o el iuspositivismo

Answer 1

Respuesta:

Iusnaturalismo es una corriente de pensamiento que se basa en la idea de que los derechos y las normas tienen un origen natural y son inherentes al ser humano. Iuspositivismo es una corriente de pensamiento que se sustenta en la separación entre moral y derecho.

Explicación:

Espero te ayude

Answer 2

Natural law is a philosophical doctrine as old as the dispute that Socrates and the sophists had to distinguish what was dictated by nature (physis) from what was established and agreed by men (thesis); but at the same time it is as modern as the political theories of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that explain the origin and foundation of political power based on the existence of natural rights, prior to the formation of the State. And although the representatives of natural law have developed different interpretations, they nevertheless share a basic thesis: natural law is not only distinguished from positive law, 2It is also superior to this because it emanates from a divine or rational nature (according to the different authors) that determines what is just and valid in universal terms, that is, regardless of the particular dictates of each State (Bobbio, 1991: 836 –837).

For natural law, nature is something that exists per se, regardless of our will and our strength. For this reason, this natural right, which is supposed to be supreme and transcendent, does not depend in the least on human or state considerations or formulations. Natural rights exist by themselves because they come from human nature itself. This nature (divine or rational) is what determines the existence and content of these rights, which, regardless of their recognition in positive (state) law, exist and are universally valid and necessary.

Natural law maintains that the law is valid and, therefore, obliges, not because it was created by a sovereign legislator or because it has its origin in any of the formal sources, but "because of the intrinsic goodness or justice of its content" (García Maynez, 1968: 128). Its universal validity derives from the assumption that anyone who made use of his own reason could distinguish the good from the bad, and the just from the unjust, according to a hypothetical just, rational, universal and necessary order (sometimes also called divine order). In other words, rational beings can and must know certain normative principles of human behavior which, since they are in their own nature, must constitute the foundation of their actions.

Someone might wonder how we will know what these fundamental principles are if, in a society, different people appeal to them to justify opposing rules or actions. To this the natural lawists respond that, since natural law is transcendent (ie immutable in time and uniform in space), 3It is impossible for two rational beings to have conflicting notions regarding natural norms of conduct. These norms are not based on the positive determinations of a State or on the particular considerations of a subject but on "nature", in an order (call it rational or divine) prior to and superior to human contingency. An order that, it could be said that "from always", has determined what is just and what is good regardless of time and space. That is why some authors characterize natural law as "the attempt to deduce from human nature a set of rules of human conduct, satisfactory from the point of view of its goodness and definitive expression of the idea of justice" (Fernández, 1993: 57) .