This paper surveys the historical development of legal philosophy, tracing the debate between natural law theory and legal positivism from ancient Greece to the Enlightenment. Beginning with Plato and Aristotle's foundational ideas about law and the state, the paper examines how Roman thinkers such as Cicero, Christian philosophers Augustine and Aquinas, and early modern theorists Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Kant each reframed the relationship between law, morality, and political authority. The paper argues that while the overall trend since the Enlightenment has favored positivism, Kant's reformulation of natural law ultimately brought the two traditions into a kind of equilibrium.
The paper employs comparative intellectual history: each philosopher is introduced not in isolation but in explicit contrast to or development from predecessors. Hobbes is framed against Aquinas, Locke against Hobbes, and Kant against the entire positivist trend. This technique shows how ideas evolve through dialogue, a hallmark of strong philosophical writing.
The paper opens with a framing paragraph establishing Plato and Aristotle's rule-of-law concept, then moves chronologically through Roman thought (Cicero), medieval Christian synthesis (Augustine, Aquinas), early modern social contract theory (Hobbes, Locke), and Enlightenment philosophy (Hume, Kant), before closing with a brief conclusion. Each section is roughly one to two paragraphs, making the structure lean but coherent for an undergraduate survey essay.
Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle were among the first to explore the concept of political philosophy (Trajkovic). In doing so, both came to agree that the best form of government was one in which every man could act well and live happily. In considering how such a government might be organized, Plato and Aristotle discussed the concept of the rule of law — the principle that no one is exempt from the law, even those in positions of power. In his last book, Plato summarized his stance on the rule of law: "Where the law is subject to some other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state" (Cooper, p. 1407).
From these early beginnings, the rule of law and its relationship to the formation of a state has been a significant topic for philosophical discussion. For Plato and Aristotle, law was how order was maintained in society and how the power of the state was controlled. Since their time, the function of law in society and its relationship to the nation-state has remained an important philosophical issue. The debate surrounding this issue is largely between positivists and natural law schools of thought. The positivists argue that there is no connection between law and morality and that the only sources of law are rules enacted by a governmental entity or a court of law. Naturalists, on the other hand, insist otherwise. They argue that moral philosophy, religion, human reason, and individual conscience are also essential parts of the law. Naturalists do not deny the need for man-made law but consider such law to be inferior to natural law. The views of Aristotle and Plato are typical of those espoused by naturalists. In fact, Aristotle is considered by most philosophers to be the father of natural law.
The natural law tradition was continued by the Romans. Cicero was the most noted of the Roman legal theorists and a staunch follower of the Greek philosophers. Cicero argued that only just laws deserve the name "law," and that inherent in the concept of law was the idea that law is what is just and true (Asmis). Although the Roman society in which Cicero lived was to become one based on civil code rather than common law, at the base of that legal system was still a strong belief in natural law.
With the rise of the Christian Church in the dying days of the Roman Empire, there was a need to reconcile Christian and Hellenistic thought. The philosopher St. Augustine, in his seminal work The City of God, incorporated both schools of thought and established a distinction between the highest law — which Augustine described as eternal law — and positive law, or man-made law (Raeder). Augustine subordinated the belief in a natural law grounded in reason, as held by Aristotle and Plato, and based it instead on faith in God. Reason became subordinate to faith and formed the basis for law and order in feudal society.
Augustine laid the foundation for the assimilation of natural law with Christian theology, but it was St. Thomas Aquinas who completed the synthesis (Hensler). Aquinas continued the dichotomy between positive law and natural law and went on to explain that there are good and bad positive laws. Bad, man-made laws, according to Aquinas, are those that either contravene the eternal law or are humanly unfair. Aquinas felt that individuals had no moral obligation to obey bad laws unless a greater scandal would result from such disobedience. Unlike Plato and Aristotle, who had envisioned a perfect city, Aquinas was willing to accept that some measure of unjust government must be tolerated and expected. Aquinas believed that natural law should dominate and that its fundamental principle is that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided — best achieved through the divine laws ordained by God. Aquinas argued that the Scriptures provide the basis of the moral values that guide the formation of all human laws.
You’re 39% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.