Comparing Natural Law to Legal Realism in the case of Carlton versus Walkovsky

In the case of Carlton vs. Walkovzsky, I will explain the facts, the main legal issues, majority decisions, and reasons for objections. This case was held on 26 September 1966 in the Court of Appeals of New York. Judge Fuld J made a majority vote and Judge Keating disputed this matter. I applied natural law and legal realism to litigation to justify my position and finally proved that natural law theory is applicable to litigation. According to the facts of the case, Walkovszky was hit by a taxi in New York four years ago and a taxi was manipulated by accident Marches by negligence.

In order to tackle the strictest but most important issue of the 21st century, it is essential to study and practice privacy and bioethical law in the sub-areas of natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and critical law research. In addition, the work of modern philosopher Ronald Dworkin, whose modern theory of law can be explained as an intermediate path between natural law theory and general law positivism theory, has special significance and significance. Furthermore, analytical and normative laws need to be applied to solve the unprecedented philosophical and legal privacy and bioethical issues of this century.

There are two kinds of natural law theory: natural law theory of validity and natural law theory of morality. The legality theory of natural law believes that the contents of the law have the necessary moral constraints. Moral theory of natural law focuses on the nature, reasons, and principles of morality. Many people agreeing on natural law ethics also agree with the law of natural law, but these two theories are logically independent. Those who accept legal theory may not accept moral theory, and natural law ethic theorists consistently believe that the law is traditional, unlike morality.

Legal realism claims to abolish the assumption of natural law as a legal method, but usually replaces natural law with collective terrorist feeling. The risk of moving forward without an unwavering foundation of transcendental morals makes it easier to return to the most common denominator of social terrorism; the standard of admitting legal / government action is tolerable by perfect terrorism There will be no place. This dismantled law seems to be a secret to reactive and unstable countries, but it is by no means desirable.