How did legal positivism differ from natural-law theory?

The primary distinction between natural-law theory and legal positivism lies in their understanding of the relationship between law and morality.

• Natural-Law Theory: This tradition posits that law is inherently connected to moral norms. It suggests that there is a system of justice derived from nature, reason, or divine authority that is common to all humans. From this perspective, human or positive law must align with these higher moral principles to be considered valid or a "central case" of law. Consequently, laws that are grossly immoral may be viewed as defective or not true law at all.12

• Legal Positivism: This tradition maintains that law is essentially a matter of social fact, such as the commands of a sovereign or rules enacted by a legislature. Positivists argue that law and morality have at most a contingent connection; therefore, a rule can be a valid law even if it is morally unjust. By separating the question of "What is law?" from "What is morally right?", positivists emphasize that recognizing a law's existence does not equate to endorsing its moral goodness.342