Abstract

According to Thuku, “Civil disobedience is not our problem; our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the grand thieves are running the country. That is our problem” The question of why we should obey law can be answered by either natural law or legal Positivism. The philosophy of jurisprudence presents two common models; one which stresses the necessary connection between law and morality and the other which denies such connection. The choice between law embedded in morality or law separated from it illustrates the ideology of Natural law and legal positivism. To understand the concept of obeying laws, it is vital to analyze both models. The research assessed the role of natural law and legal positivism in defining laws and the reasons offered by each model for obedience to the dictates of the law. The comparison of the two perspectives of the law helps in understanding the most realistic model that makes laws mandatory for the people and communities governed by the law. The concept of law depends on the social and political life while jurisprudence emphasizes on the themes of justice, equality, and fairness. Jurisprudence answers the basic question of what is the nature of law and its purpose.

Keywords