Of course, here are your exam notes on the Natural Theory of Law during

the Ancient Period, prepared from the sources provided.

Exam Notes: Natural Law Theory in the Ancient Period

1. Introduction: Core Concepts

 Foundation of Modern Jurisprudence: The ancient civilisations

of Greece and Rome are cornerstones in the development of modern
jurisprudence, profoundly shaping our understanding of law, justice,
and governance.

 Divergent Approaches: While both cultures developed enduring

legacies, their approaches differed.

o Greek thought emphasised philosophical idealism and

theoretical speculation. The Greek philosophical journey was a
"search for absolute values" in ethics and law.

o Roman thought focused on pragmatism and the practical

application of legal principles.

 Concept of Natural Law: Central to their contributions is the

concept of 'Natural Law', also known as the 'Higher Law' or 'the
Law of Nature'. This concept serves as a universal and inherent
'litmus test' for determining the legitimacy of all other laws.

 Scope of Natural Law Philosophy: As a branch of jurisprudence,

natural law is concerned with the 'validity' of law, rather than just
its structure or efficacy. It encompasses ideals that guide legal and
political developments, such as the Rule of Law, Natural Rights, and
Natural Justice.

2. Greek Legal Theory: The Search for Absolute Values

The Greeks were among the first to conceptualise universal principles of

law and justice, which was described by W. Friedmann as a "search for
absolute values".

 A. Archaic Age: Divine Law

o In early Greek thought, law was seen as issuing from the

gods and revealed to humanity.

o The poet Hesiod (c. 700 BC) characterised law as an "order of

peace founded on fairness," given to mankind by Zeus.
 o A classic example of the conflict between divine and human
law is found in Sophocles' play Antigone, where the
protagonist defies King Creon's decree to follow the "eternal,
unwritten divine law".

 B. The Sophists: Relativism and the 'Right of the Strong'

o A significant shift occurred in the 5th century BC with the rise

of the Sophists, who divorced philosophy from religion and
subjected tradition to critical scrutiny.

o They viewed law as a "purely human invention" born of

expediency, alterable at will, and stripped of metaphysical
attributes. The Sophists were the first proponents of
philosophical relativism and scepticism.

o Protagoras (c. 490-420 BC): Asserted that "man is the

measure of all things," and truth is relative.

o Callicles (5th Century BC): Argued for the "right of the

strong," stating that nature demonstrates the superiority of
the strong, while human laws are created by the weak
majority to enforce an unnatural equality.

o Thrasymachus (5th Century BC): Taught the "right of

might," claiming laws are made by those in power to serve
their own advantage. He famously defined justice as "nothing
else than that which is advantageous to the stronger".

 C. Socrates (470-399 BC): Objective Ethics

o Socrates criticised the Sophists for undermining the moral

fabric of society and "turning the meaning of truth upside
down".

o He sought to overcome their subjectivism by establishing a

system of ethics based on objectively verified values.

o He posited a "natural moral law" accessible through human

"insight," which provides absolute and eternal moral rules.

o While he believed this insight was the basis for judging

positive law, Socrates did not advocate disobedience to
law even if it conflicted with moral law, famously choosing to
accept his death sentence rather than escape prison.

 D. Plato (429-348 BC): The Ideal Commonwealth

 o For Plato, justice meant that a person should do the work
in the station of life to which he was called by his
capacities.

o In The Republic, he described an ideal state ruled by

philosopher-kings (men of gold) who would wield absolute
power rationally and unselfishly for the state's good.

o Initially, Plato held an unfavourable view of fixed laws, arguing

that the variability of human affairs makes perfectly accurate,
unqualified rules impossible. His ideal was justice
administered "without law" by a wise man.

o Later in life, acknowledging that infallible men are rare, Plato

proposed the "law state" as the "second best alternative" in
his work The Laws. He stipulated that governing authorities
must be "servant[s] of the law".

 E. Aristotle (384-322 BC): The Rule of Law

o Aristotle, Plato's student, diverged from his teacher's idealism

by emphasising realism and the actual conditions of social
reality.

o He argued that a "state based on law" is the only

practicable means to achieve the good life. He famously
stated that law is "reason from all passion".

o He made a key distinction between:

1. Natural Justice: Has the same validity everywhere and

is not dependent on acceptance.

2. Conventional Justice: Is initially indifferent but

becomes binding once settled by legal authority.

o He also differentiated between Distributive Justice

(distribution of honour and wealth according to merit) and
Remedial Justice (restoring equality after an injury).

o Criticism: Despite his emphasis on equality in justice,

Aristotle defended slavery and the domination of men over
women as natural and necessary.

 F. The Stoics (founded by Zeno, c. 300 BC): Universal Reason

and Equality
 o The Stoic school identified "nature" with God and Reason,
believing a universal force pervades the cosmos and dwells in
all men.

o They developed a "cosmopolitan philosophy" founded on

the principles of the "equality of all men" and the
universality of natural law.

o They stressed living a life free from emotion and passion,

guided by one's rational nature.

3. Roman Legal Theory: Pragmatism and Implementation

The Romans, while deeply influenced by Greek Stoicism, were

characterised by a more practical and less abstract approach to law.

 A. Roman Legal System

o Roman law was distinguished by three simultaneous concepts:

1. Jus Civile: The civil law applicable only to Roman

citizens.

2. Jus Gentium: A body of rules applied to non-citizens,

derived from usages common among the people Rome
interacted with.

3. Jus Naturale: Literally 'natural law', though in legal

practice it often referred to practical and just solutions
for specific cases rather than a grand universal theory.

 B. Cicero (106-43 BC): The Voice of Natural Law

o Cicero was a passionate proponent of natural law, which he

described as "right reason in agreement with nature".

o He argued that true law is universally applicable,

unchanging, and everlasting. This law has a "natural
force," and a sense of justice is inherent in human nature.

o Critically, Cicero stated that "unjust statutes did not

deserve to be called laws".

 C. Application of Natural Law Principles

o The primary Roman contribution was the gradual

implementation and integration of philosophical principles
into their legal system. The Stoic idea of human equality was
particularly influential.
 o Slavery: Stoic influence in the post-Augustan period led to
legal reforms.

 Florentinus (2nd-3rd Cent AD) defined slavery as an

institution "contrary to nature".

 Ulpian (170-223 AD) stated that under natural law, "all

men are equal".

 Emperors like Hadrian and Antoninus Pius implemented

laws to improve the legal and social standing of slaves.

o Family Law: The legal status of Roman women was also

affected by humanitarian ideas traceable to Stoic natural law.
The husband's autocratic power was gradually replaced by
'free marriage', which granted women greater personal and
financial independence.

4. Summary of Key Philosophers and Ideas

Philosopher Time Period Main Idea

700 BC
Hesiod Law is divine will from the Gods.
(Archaic Age)

Highlighted the conflict between human and

Sophocles 497-406 BC
divine law.

"Man is the measure of all things"; truth is

Protagoras 490-420 BC
relative.

5th Century
Callicles Advocated the 'right of the strong'.
BC

Thrasymac 5th Century Justice is the advantage of the stronger; law

hus BC serves rulers.

Ethics are based on absolute moral law; one

Socrates 470-399 BC
must obey the law even if unjust.

Justice is each person fulfilling their role;

Plato 429-348 BC
described the ideal commonwealth.

The rule of law is supreme; differentiated

Aristotle 384-322 BC
natural and conventional justice.
Zeno
350-260 BC Natural law is universal reason.
(Stoics)

True law is right reason in harmony with

Cicero 106-43 BC
nature.

Seneca 4 BC - 65 AD Advocated humane treatment of slaves.

Ulpian 170-223 AD Natural law regards all men as equal.

2nd-3rd
Florentinus Defined slavery as contrary to nature.
Century AD

Of course. Here are your exam notes on the theory of natural law,
prepared from the provided sources.

Exam Notes: The Theory of Natural Law

1. Introduction to Natural Law

 Core Concept: Natural law theory has played a significant role in

legal thought. Historically, especially in ancient societies, it was
often believed to have a divine origin, acting as a catalyst for moral
acts.

 Evolution: The content and interpretation of natural law have

varied over time, adapting to the needs of different periods. The
sources identify four key historical periods: the Ancient Period, the
Medieval Period, the Renaissance, and the Modern Period.

2. The Medieval Period (c. 12th century to mid-14th century)

 Theological Foundation: This era was dominated by ecclesiastical

doctrines propagated by the Christian faith. Natural law was
considered a divine law, superior to all other laws. The principles
were based on nature, while human laws were based on customs.

 St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274): A key figure who viewed law

as an "ordinance of reason for the common good" promulgated by a
figure of authority.
 o Aquinas's Classification of Law:

1. Eternal Law (Lex Aeterna): Divine reason known only

to God.

2. Natural Law (Lex Naturalis): The part of eternal law

revealed through human reason.

3. Divine Law (Lex Divina): The law revealed in the

scriptures.

4. Human Law (Lex Humana): What we now call

'positive law'.

o Validity of Human Law: For Aquinas, human laws are only

valid to the extent that they are compatible with natural and
divine law. The Church was seen as having the authority to
interpret divine law.

3. The Renaissance and Modern Periods

 Shift in Thought: This period, also called the modern classical era,
was marked by rationalism and the emergence of new ideas.
Natural law theory was reinterpreted, moving away from a purely
theological foundation.

 Social Contract: Thinkers like Grotius, Locke, and Rousseau

used natural law and the idea of a 'social contract' as the basis of
society to champion individual rights. The state and its laws were
seen as deriving their power from the people who agreed to be
governed.

4. Key Thinkers of the Modern Period

 Hugo Grotius (1583–1645)

o Secular Approach: Grotius departed from the scholastic

approach of Aquinas and argued that natural law was
based on human reason, not just divine will.

o Immutability: He famously believed that natural law is so

unchangeable that it cannot be altered, even by God. He
positioned natural law at a higher level than divine law.

 Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679)

o Justification for Absolutism: Hobbes used natural law

theory to justify the absolute authority of the sovereign.
His theory was empirical and lacked the metaphysical
character of earlier natural law theories.
 o State of Nature: He depicted the state of nature as a war of
"every man against every man," where life was "solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short".

o Social Contract: To achieve peace and self-preservation,

people voluntarily entered a contract, surrendering their
freedom to a powerful sovereign (the 'Leviathan') in exchange
for protection. For Hobbes, the real law is the civil law
commanded and enforced by this sovereign.

 John Locke (1632–1704)

o Defence of Liberty: In contrast to Hobbes, Locke pleaded for

individual liberty.

o State of Nature: Locke viewed the state of nature as a

"reasonably good and enjoyable" place where individuals
had natural rights to life, liberty, and property, governed by
the law of nature.

o Social Contract: People entered a social contract to preserve

these rights. Civil laws were considered valid only if they did
not contradict natural law and the rights it protected. The
state's power was constitutionally limited.

 Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)

o General Will: Rousseau adapted the concepts of social

contract and natural law to his theory of the "general will".

o State of Nature: He believed that in the state of nature,

people lived with freedom and equality.

o Social Contract: The social contract arises when people unite

to form a state, and the sovereign is the individual expression
of the general will of the people.

 Samuel von Pufendorf (1632–1694)

o Reason and Duty: Pufendorf argued that natural law

originates from reason and emphasised the duties we owe
to God and to others, such as respecting property and
health.

o The State: He believed the state exists to enforce natural

law, but its role is not absolute like in Hobbes's view. His vision
was more social, moral, and cooperative than Hobbes's,
which was based on fear and self-preservation.
5. Key Concepts in Reasoning

 A Priori Reasoning: This refers to knowledge that is independent

of experience (i.e., self-evident). Thinkers like Aquinas believed that
the principles of natural law could be known through reason alone
because they are self-evident.

 A Posteriori Reasoning: This refers to knowledge that is derived

from experience and observation. Some thinkers believed natural
law is understood by observing human behaviour, customs, and how
societies function.

6. Conclusion: The Transformation of Natural Law

 The theory of natural law underwent a major transformation from

the Medieval to the Renaissance period.

 In the Medieval era, it was deeply rooted in Christian theology,

with the central idea that law must reflect God's eternal order.

 During the Renaissance, it shifted towards a secular, rational, and

rights-focused approach. Natural law evolved from a divine
framework into a set of universal moral principles of justice used to
shape law.

Of course. Here are the exam notes prepared from the sources you
provided on Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law.

Exam Notes: Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law

1. Introduction to Legal Theory

 Connections: All systematic thinking about legal theory is linked to

philosophy and political theory.

o Sometimes it begins with philosophy (e.g., German

metaphysicians) and is influenced by political ideas.

o Other times it begins with political ideology (e.g., Socialism,

Fascism) and incorporates philosophical thought.

 Thinkers in Legal Theory: They can come from three

backgrounds:

1. Philosophers: Who engage in law to complete their

philosophical systems.
 2. Politicians: Who use law to express their political ideas.

3. Lawyers: Who focus on law's ultimate purposes from their

professional experience.

 Sources of Legal Theory: Legal theory can be drawn from various

sources, including religion, ethics, economics, and science.

 Historical Shift: Before the 19th century, legal theory was

primarily drawn from philosophy, religion, ethics, and politics, with
most legal thinkers being philosophers, church leaders, or
politicians. The shift towards legal philosophy as a separate and
distinct field is a more recent development.

2. Hans Kelsen: An Introduction

 Who he was: Hans Kelsen was an Austrian jurist and philosopher

who provided a systematic and scientific way of looking at law. He
was a professor of law at the University of Vienna and a judge of the
Supreme Constitutional Court of Austria.

 Key Publications: He first published 'The Pure Theory of Law' in

1934 and further elaborated on it in his 1945 book, 'General Theory
of Law and State'.

 Positivism: Kelsen's theory is considered the most refined

development in analytical positivism and a reaction against other
20th-century legal approaches. He argued that a theory of law must
deal with law as it actually is laid down, not as it ought to be.

3. Key Features of the Pure Theory of Law

1. Purity of Legal Science: Kelsen emphasized that jurisprudence

must be 'pure', meaning it should be free from sociology, politics,
history, or morality. Law should be studied as law itself, not as a tool
of justice or politics.

2. Law as a Normative Science: Law does not describe how

individuals actually behave (facts) but prescribes how they ought
to act (norms). This makes it a normative science, distinct from
natural sciences.

3. Hierarchy of Norms: The legal system is structured in layers,

where lower norms derive their validity from higher ones. For
example, the validity of an individual act comes from a statute,
 which in turn is validated by the Constitution. This hierarchy
ultimately leads to the Grundnorm.

4. The Grundnorm (Basic Norm): At the foundation of the legal

system lies a presupposed basic norm called the Grundnorm. It is
not enacted but is assumed, and it gives validity to the entire legal
system. For example, the presupposition that "the constitution must
be obeyed".

5. Separation of Law and Morality: The validity of a law depends

on its creation through proper legal procedures, not on its moral
values. An unjust law, if enacted correctly, is still legally valid.

6. Sanctions: What differentiates legal norms from other norms (like

morality) is coercion. Law ensures compliance through organized
sanctions such as punishments, fines, and enforcement.

7. Dynamic Nature of Law: Law is not static; it is a dynamic process

where new norms are constantly being created. The theory's focus is
on the procedures of law-making, not on the content of the laws
themselves.

8. Unity of the Legal System: All legal norms are interconnected

and form a single, coherent system. Their unity comes from the fact
that each norm's validity can be traced back to a higher one, and
ultimately to the single Grundnorm.

4. The Grundnorm (Basic Norm) Explained

 Definition: The Grundnorm is the presupposed fundamental

norm that provides validity to all other norms within a legal system.
It is the ultimate, assumed source from which the entire hierarchy of
norms derives its binding force.

 Key Characteristics:

o Presupposed, Not Enacted: It is not created by legislation

but is assumed to exist.

o Source of Validity: Every law, from the constitution down to

ordinary regulations, derives its authority from it.

o Normative, Not Factual: It tells us what ought to be done,

not what is done.
 o Dynamic: If a revolution successfully replaces a constitution,
the old Grundnorm collapses and a new one is presupposed
for the new legal order.

 Effectiveness: Kelsen stated that a Grundnorm is only recognized if

it has a minimum of effectiveness, meaning it is supported by an
effective group of people in the state.

 Example (India): An ordinary law is valid because Parliament

enacted it. Parliament's power comes from the Constitution. The
Constitution is legally binding because the legal community
presupposes the basic norm that "The Constitution of India
must be obeyed". This presupposition is the Indian legal system's
Grundnorm.

5. Significance and Application of the Grundnorm

 Foundation of Legal Validity: The Grundnorm explains why a

constitution is binding. It ensures that every law and judgment is
legally valid because its authority can be traced back to this basic
norm.

 Unity of the Legal Order: It guarantees that the legal system is a

unified, systematic hierarchy rather than a random collection of
rules, as all norms derive validity from the same source.

 Prevents Infinite Regress: The Grundnorm acts as a stopping

point in the chain of validity. Without it, one would have to keep
asking what validates each norm, leading to an infinite regress.

 Justifies Constitutional Supremacy and Judicial Review: It

ensures constitutional supremacy and justifies judicial review. Courts
can strike down statutes because the constitution, validated by the
Grundnorm, is superior to ordinary legislation.

 Application in Domestic Law:

o India: The Basic Structure Doctrine reflects the Grundnorm

by affirming the Constitution's supremacy.

o USA: The principle of judicial review established in Marbury

v. Madison is grounded in the supremacy of the Constitution,
which is itself validated by the Grundnorm.

 Application in International Law: Kelsen extended the concept

to international law, suggesting a presupposed Grundnorm that
 "States must follow customary rules and honour treaties" to
create a coherent legal order in the absence of a global sovereign.

6. Criticisms of the Grundnorm

1. H.L.A. Hart: Argued the Grundnorm is an "unnecessary

duplication". He proposed a "rule of recognition" based on the
actual practices of legal officials, not a hypothetical presupposition.

2. Natural Law Theorists: Argue that law's validity cannot be purely

formal and divorced from moral content. They believe this
separation fails to explain why people feel they ought to obey the
law.

3. Vagueness and Abstractness: Critics find the idea of a

"presupposed" norm to be vague. Kelsen himself admitted it is not
enacted but is "presupposed in the legal cognition of the positive
legal order".

4. Limited Practical Relevance: People often obey the law due to

sanctions, authority, or social acceptance, not because of a
presupposed norm. This weakens its practical explanatory power.

7. Conclusion: Enduring Relevance

 Hans Kelsen's Pure Theory of Law was a rigorous attempt to

establish jurisprudence as a genuine science by isolating law from
external moral, political, and social influences.

 The Grundnorm is the heart of this theory, providing the ultimate

logical foundation for the validity and unity of any legal order.

 Despite debate, the concept's enduring relevance lies in its

explanatory power for understanding constitutional supremacy,
judicial review, federal structures, and the coherence of
international law.

Of course. Here are the exam notes prepared from the new sources you
have provided, focusing on the development of positivism and analytical
legal theories.
Exam Notes: Positivism and Analytical Theories of Law

1. Core Concepts of Legal Positivism

 Legal Positivism: A general theory of law and morality that is

fundamentally based on the Separation Thesis. It is the
conceptual part of legal empiricism.

 Separation Thesis: This core principle states that the questions of

'what is law' and 'what ought to be law' are logically distinct
and separate questions. A jurist should be concerned with "positive
laws... as considered without regard to their goodness or badness".

 Sources Thesis: This is a central idea in legal positivism which

holds that whether something is law is determined by its source or
sources, not its moral content. Laws are a type of rule identified by
their history or origin.

 Analytical Positivism: This is a prominent form of legal positivism

that begins with an existing legal system and, through inductive
reasoning, identifies its fundamental concepts and distinctions. Its
goal is to provide an "anatomy of a legal system" by analysing legal
terms and the logical connections between legal propositions.

2. Auguste Comte (1798–1857): Philosophical Founder of

Positivism

 Core Idea: Comte is recognised as the philosophical founder of

modern positivism. His primary concern was with social reform,
progress, and order. He believed society evolved through stages
governed by social laws.

 Comte's Positivism: His philosophy rejects all metaphysical

speculation and confines itself to the empirical observation and
connection of facts, similar to the methods of natural sciences.

 The Law of Three Stages: Comte theorised that human thought

progresses through three distinct stages:

1. Theological Stage: Phenomena are explained by

supernatural causes or divine intervention.

2. Metaphysical Stage: Explanations rely on abstract ideas and

ultimate principles conceived as underlying forces.

3. Positive Stage: Thought is based on scientific demonstration

and the observation of real facts to determine invariable
natural laws.
  View on Law and Rights: In the final "Positive" stage, Comte
argued that the concept of individual "Right" would disappear
entirely. Instead, society would be based on duty, where every
individual has duties towards others, and security comes from the
acknowledgement of reciprocal obligations. He famously stated,
"Man's only right is to do his duty".

 Societal Context: Comte lived in the tumultuous first half of the

19th century, an era shaped by the French Revolution, the rise of
industrial society, and a general shift away from theological thinking
towards scientific approaches. His work aimed to provide a rational
basis for social order amidst this change.

3. David Hume (1711–1776): Precursor to Legal Empiricism

 Contribution: Hume's contribution to legal empiricism is

considered mainly negative and preparatory. He did not
construct a theory of legal empiricism himself but "created the
conditions which allowed for the development of legal
empiricism" by clarifying the philosophical tools needed.

 The Fact/Value Distinction (Is/Ought Gap): Hume's most crucial

contribution was his clear distinction between what is the case
(facts) and what ought to be the case (values). This distinction was
a necessary precondition for the Separation Thesis.

 Why Hume was not a Legal Empiricist:

o No Prescriptive Theory: His work was primarily descriptive

metaethics—explaining why we have the social rules and
concepts of justice that we do—rather than normative
jurisprudence that prescribes what laws we ought to have.

o Rejection of the Sources Thesis: He did not offer a value-

neutral account of law. Instead, he constantly described the
sources of law in moral terms, suggesting that law necessarily
promotes utility, a view that contradicts legal positivism.

o No Legal Separation Thesis: Despite his famous fact/value

distinction, his descriptions of law were always "infected by
morality," meaning he did not hold the separation thesis as it
is understood in legal theory.

 Societal Context: Hume was a central figure in the 18th-century

Age of Enlightenment and the Scottish Enlightenment, which
championed reason and empirical observation over tradition and
 dogma. This period saw a move to separate jurisprudence from
theology.

4. John Austin (1790–1859): Founder of Analytical Positivism

 Key Role: Austin is the founder of the analytical school of law

and a central figure in analytical positivism.

 The Command Theory of Law:

o Austin's essential definition of positive law is that it is an

imperative.

o A law is a general command issued by a sovereign (a

political superior) to political inferiors.

o The sovereign is one who receives habitual obedience from

the bulk of society and does not habitually obey any other
superior.

o This command must be backed by the threat of a sanction

(punishment).

 Strict Separation of Law and Morality:

o Austin drew a sharp line between jurisprudence (the science

of positive law) and ethics.

o Jurisprudence is concerned with "law as it is," not "law as it

ought to be". The goodness or badness of a law is a question
for legislators or ethicists, not jurists.

 Other Key Ideas:

o Judge-Made Law: Austin acknowledged that judges can

make law, but he viewed this as occurring under a "tacit
command" from the sovereign, who allows them to do so.

o Customary and International Law: He did not consider

these to be "law properly so called." Instead, he classified
them as "positive morality" unless a sovereign had
expressly or tacitly adopted them as commands.

o Utilitarianism: Although a utilitarian, Austin placed this

philosophy within the "science of legislation" (a branch of
ethics), keeping it separate from his analytical jurisprudence.

 Societal Context: Austin worked during the 19th-century Industrial

Revolution in Britain, a time of major legal reform movements, the
 consolidation of the nation-state, and a strong intellectual
countermovement against natural law theories.

5. Comparison and Critical Perspectives

 Intellectual Lineage: There is a clear progression:

1. Comte provided the broad philosophical foundation for

positivism as a worldview.

2. Hume provided the critical empiricist tools, especially the

is/ought distinction, that made the separation thesis possible.

3. Austin applied these principles directly to the law, creating a

formal, analytical legal theory.

 Critiques of Austin's Command Theory:

o It overemphasises coercion and fails to account for the

internal acceptance of law (a point later developed by H.L.A.
Hart).

o The concept of "tacit command" to explain judge-made law

is seen as a legal fiction.

o The notion of a "habit of obedience" does not adequately

explain the continuity of a legal system when a sovereign
changes.

o It ignores or downplays the importance of customary law as

a source of law.

 Influence on Later Jurisprudence:

o Positivism remains a central theory, evolving into more

sophisticated forms like H.L.A. Hart's.

o The empirical focus of positivism influenced movements like

Sociological Jurisprudence and American Legal Realism.

o The strict separation of 'is' and 'ought' prompted a revival of

natural law theories in the 20th century (e.g., Lon Fuller) as a
reaction.