Natural law theory holds that the concept we have come to understand as law significantly reflects the moral judgments and standards that are exercised in society. Law, according to natural law theory, is simply a reflection of a societal “natural moral order.” It is a philosophy that embraces overall goodness and equality, but rejects the mere mention of evil. It requires that a law be applied with respect for the fundamental rights of all its citizens, while promoting the common good. “Naturalism holds that human practices and institutions must be measured against these 'higher' standards and that, when they fail to meet expectations, specific human dispositions, whether laws, decrees or constitutions, do not fully have the character of law. » (Adams p.19). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Furthermore, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the theory of natural law involves the notion of practical law. He argues that natural and practical laws are so closely intertwined that they seek to understand and appreciate what society should value, what it should seek in life, and the appropriate means by which to achieve these goals. Essentially, Aquinas asserted that “good must be done and evil avoided” (Adams p. 23). An example of natural law, as Aquinas notes, would be the return of a borrowed object to its rightful owner. In the eyes of natural law, this is considered a morally sound and necessary action. This is the “right” thing to do. Natural law therefore places great importance on the concepts of morality and law, thus suggesting that an immoral law is not a law at all. Legal realism, on the other hand, signifies a much more distinct quality against the backdrop of natural law theory. Legal realism deliberately failed to subscribe to the arguments posed by natural law, claiming that the theory was far too obscure and vague to be binding. “Instead, legal realism roughly defines law as a method of resolving disputes by appealing to the higher authority of an office, or to put it more succinctly, it claims that law is exactly what judges say it is” (Adams, p. 116). The theory challenges the fact that legal realism is not an entity of inflexible, standardized, unchanging rules, but rather that it lends itself to law as a social institution flexible enough for the competing interests of various groups within of a society can be satisfied. Legal realism, in this sense, is strongly influenced by experience, not by logic or a generally applicable set of rules. As mentioned earlier, natural law was founded primarily on the argument that law and morality are interdependent on each other. The two had to coexist to validate a law. Legal realism, however, makes no distinct proposition between these two elements of legal reasoning. This places no emphasis on whether a law is “morally right” or “morally wrong”. Rather, decisions arise from a judge's intuition or simple intuition, but are worded in such a way as to give the impression that the conclusions of a case have been formulated in a systematic and logical manner. More importantly, law, in reference to legal realists, is about prediction. For example, by identifying a judge's political ideology (i.e., liberal or conservative), one could infer how the judgecould decide a particular matter. "Nevertheless, legal realism repeatedly emphasizes the indeterminacy or vagueness of stare decisis by emphasizing that a particular decision is never binding on a decision maker in a future case, because the decision maker can always find some aspect of the subsequent case for the differentiate from the previous one. one” (Adams p.64). Additionally, the decision made in a specific case is significantly influenced by the personal social context that a judge brings to a decision.case. The decisions are the product of subjective points of view, but quite consistent with the history of law, presented by the court. Decisions are made up of individual interpretations and individual social philosophies. Applying natural law to this particular case, one would most likely argue, against the Blue and Gray taxi company, that the acts and practices, such as those that have surfaced here, appear clearly immoral and manipulative. Given the theoretical content of natural law, the Joneses' allegations would have been immediately rejected by the courts. The deal would have been concluded in a radically different way. This case regularly challenged the fundamental elements that make up natural law. First, the contract proposed by the Blue and Gray Taxi Company and the railroad deprived other companies (i.e., the Purple Taxi Co.) of their right to engage openly. in a free commercial market. This prevented the Purple Taxi Company, for example, from soliciting business on or around the area that had been assigned exclusively to the Joneses. This designated area, located adjacent to the railroad company depot, was to be used solely at the discretion of the Blue and Gray Taxi Company. They were to be the only lawyers in the taxi business. Essentially, the two companies were forming a coalition of sorts in order to establish a sort of monopoly over other competing companies. This sort of corporate monopoly that the two formed served no moral purpose. It did absolutely nothing to promote a sense of equal opportunity and, furthermore, showed minimal respect for the best interests of other citizens. Second, the contract itself, under Kentucky state law, was considered illegal. Under Kentucky law, the contract negotiated between the railroad and the Blue and Gray Taxi Company had no legal standing. It was not valid and therefore could not be respected in legal terms. Legal counsel representing the Joneses was well aware of the invalidity of the contract and recognized the fact that Kentucky would not comply with its provisions. Knowing this, the board manipulatively abused the entire legal system of the state of Kentucky by moving all of the company's assets and accounts to another state. By doing so, he could move the case from the state level to the federal level, where the case would have a very good chance of being decided in his favor. His intentions then were not to respect Kentucky law, but rather to mock it and all its citizens. His tactics were strictly one-sided and selfish. As a result, the common good was never achieved. What he did, although legally permissible, was immoral and unjust. Now, natural law would dictate that such conduct would fail to fully describe the true character of the law and would therefore not be considered binding law. Applying legal realism, the case would not have been concluded very differently from the way it was. . The decision would have remained the same. Given the nature of the content defining legal realism, one could have.