LJU4801
OCT/NOV PORTFOLIO 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 28 OCTOBER 2025
, Legal Philosophy
QUESTION 1
Mandela’s pronouncement and the debate on law and morality
Introduction
Nelson Mandela’s 1962 court statement in Pretoria reflects one of the most enduring
questions in legal philosophy the relationship between law and morality. Mandela
declared that “the whole life of any thinking African in this country drives him
continuously to a conflict between his conscience on the one hand and the law on the
other.” This statement places his moral conscience in direct opposition to unjust
apartheid laws, raising the classical jurisprudential issue: Must a person obey a law
merely because it is law, even when it is unjust?
Theoretical background: The law–morality debate
The law–morality debate is primarily shaped by two dominant schools of thought: legal
positivism and natural law theory.
(a) Legal positivism
Legal positivists such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart argue that the validity of law
depends on social facts — such as legislative enactment or judicial precedent — rather
than on moral content. Austin described law as “the command of the sovereign backed
by sanction,” while Hart’s The Concept of Law (1961) introduced a more refined system
of “rules of recognition” to determine what counts as valid law. Hart maintained that law
and morality are conceptually distinct; an unjust law can still be a valid law. This is the
separation thesis.
(b) Natural law theory
Natural law theorists (from St. Thomas Aquinas to Lon Fuller and Ronald Dworkin)
reject this separation. They hold that law must meet certain moral standards to be
OCT/NOV PORTFOLIO 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 28 OCTOBER 2025
, Legal Philosophy
QUESTION 1
Mandela’s pronouncement and the debate on law and morality
Introduction
Nelson Mandela’s 1962 court statement in Pretoria reflects one of the most enduring
questions in legal philosophy the relationship between law and morality. Mandela
declared that “the whole life of any thinking African in this country drives him
continuously to a conflict between his conscience on the one hand and the law on the
other.” This statement places his moral conscience in direct opposition to unjust
apartheid laws, raising the classical jurisprudential issue: Must a person obey a law
merely because it is law, even when it is unjust?
Theoretical background: The law–morality debate
The law–morality debate is primarily shaped by two dominant schools of thought: legal
positivism and natural law theory.
(a) Legal positivism
Legal positivists such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart argue that the validity of law
depends on social facts — such as legislative enactment or judicial precedent — rather
than on moral content. Austin described law as “the command of the sovereign backed
by sanction,” while Hart’s The Concept of Law (1961) introduced a more refined system
of “rules of recognition” to determine what counts as valid law. Hart maintained that law
and morality are conceptually distinct; an unjust law can still be a valid law. This is the
separation thesis.
(b) Natural law theory
Natural law theorists (from St. Thomas Aquinas to Lon Fuller and Ronald Dworkin)
reject this separation. They hold that law must meet certain moral standards to be
