, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
QUESTION 1
1. Consider Mandela’s pronouncement in light of the persistent debate in legal philosophy that
pertains to the relationship between law and morality. Extensively discuss the debate and
expressly situate Mandela’s statement in relation to the debate.
Nelson Mandela’s statement made during his first court appearance in 1962 presents a profound
critique of the legal system in South Africa under apartheid, as well as an implicit challenge to the
relationship between law and morality. His assertion that "the law as it is applied...is immoral, unjust,
and intolerable" resonates with the ongoing debate in legal philosophy concerning the interaction
between law and morality. This debate has been central to discussions about whether laws should
reflect moral principles or whether law, as a system of rules, must be adhered to regardless of its
moral implications.
Legal Positivism
Legal positivism, as articulated by thinkers such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart, asserts that law is a
system of rules that must be followed, regardless of their moral content. According to this view, the
validity of a law is determined by its creation through proper channels (e.g., legislation or judicial
decisions) and not by its moral correctness1 . In this context, Mandela’s critique of the apartheid law
system directly challenges positivist thought. The South African laws he opposed were legally valid
under the apartheid regime, but Mandela’s argument suggests that the law's moral legitimacy is
deeply flawed. For Mandela, the immorality of the apartheid laws made them unworthy of adherence,
and the duty to oppose them outweighed the obligation to obey them. This aligns with the critique of
legal positivism that laws, while formally valid, can be immoral and thus warrant defiance.
Natural Law Theory
In contrast to legal positivism, natural law theory, rooted in thinkers like Aristotle and St. Thomas
Aquinas, holds that law is inherently connected to morality. According to natural law theorists, the
legitimacy of law is derived from its alignment with universal moral principles or natural rights.
Mandela’s statement reflects this perspective in his assertion that the apartheid laws were “immoral,
unjust, and intolerable.” By invoking his conscience and positioning moral duty above legal
compliance, Mandela aligns himself with natural law thinking. The natural law tradition maintains
that laws that are immoral should not be followed, as they fail to fulfill their true function of
promoting justice and the common good2 . Mandela’s civil disobedience is an expression of this
principle, where the law's failure to embody justice requires action to challenge it.
1: (Hart, 1961)
2: (Finnis, 1980)
QUESTION 1
1. Consider Mandela’s pronouncement in light of the persistent debate in legal philosophy that
pertains to the relationship between law and morality. Extensively discuss the debate and
expressly situate Mandela’s statement in relation to the debate.
Nelson Mandela’s statement made during his first court appearance in 1962 presents a profound
critique of the legal system in South Africa under apartheid, as well as an implicit challenge to the
relationship between law and morality. His assertion that "the law as it is applied...is immoral, unjust,
and intolerable" resonates with the ongoing debate in legal philosophy concerning the interaction
between law and morality. This debate has been central to discussions about whether laws should
reflect moral principles or whether law, as a system of rules, must be adhered to regardless of its
moral implications.
Legal Positivism
Legal positivism, as articulated by thinkers such as John Austin and H.L.A. Hart, asserts that law is a
system of rules that must be followed, regardless of their moral content. According to this view, the
validity of a law is determined by its creation through proper channels (e.g., legislation or judicial
decisions) and not by its moral correctness1 . In this context, Mandela’s critique of the apartheid law
system directly challenges positivist thought. The South African laws he opposed were legally valid
under the apartheid regime, but Mandela’s argument suggests that the law's moral legitimacy is
deeply flawed. For Mandela, the immorality of the apartheid laws made them unworthy of adherence,
and the duty to oppose them outweighed the obligation to obey them. This aligns with the critique of
legal positivism that laws, while formally valid, can be immoral and thus warrant defiance.
Natural Law Theory
In contrast to legal positivism, natural law theory, rooted in thinkers like Aristotle and St. Thomas
Aquinas, holds that law is inherently connected to morality. According to natural law theorists, the
legitimacy of law is derived from its alignment with universal moral principles or natural rights.
Mandela’s statement reflects this perspective in his assertion that the apartheid laws were “immoral,
unjust, and intolerable.” By invoking his conscience and positioning moral duty above legal
compliance, Mandela aligns himself with natural law thinking. The natural law tradition maintains
that laws that are immoral should not be followed, as they fail to fulfill their true function of
promoting justice and the common good2 . Mandela’s civil disobedience is an expression of this
principle, where the law's failure to embody justice requires action to challenge it.
1: (Hart, 1961)
2: (Finnis, 1980)
