THE EVALUATION OF ROBERT ALEXY’S ARGUMENT FROM CORRECTNESS

As one of the contemporary representatives of natural law theory, Robert Alexy points out the connections between law and morality and bases these connections mainly on the law’s claim to correctness. According to Alexy, argument from correctness is supported by two arguments. The first is the argument from injustice, and the second is the argument from principles. According to the argument from injustice, extreme unjust laws do not have legal character from the perspective of the participants in the legal system. According to the argument from principles, every minimally developed legal system incorporates various principles and they claim to represent the correct morality. According to Alexy, these elements show the dual nature of law. Law, on the one hand, expresses a factual reality, which is emphasized by legal positivists. On the other hand, the law also carries a claim to correctness pointing to ideal morality, which is emphasized by non-positivist theorists and overlooked by positivists. The consequences of law’s claim to correctness with regard to legal positivism, the scope, the author and the conceptual necessity of this claim have been questioned by positivist thinkers such as Raz, Gardner, MacCormick.