LJU4801
May June PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 1 June 2026
QUESTION 1
Martin Luther King Jr‟s statement is best understood as natural law, because it treats justice
as the standard that decides whether a human rule deserves obedience.1 His point is not
that people may reject law whenever it is inconvenient, but that law must answer to a moral
measure outside state power.1 Natural law accepts that a legal rule can be tested against a
higher idea of justice before it is accepted as binding on conscience.1 This makes King‟s
distinction between just and unjust law part of a long debate about the link between law and
morality.1 His view matches the natural law claim that positive law must meet the demands
of a higher and more permanent form of law.1
Natural law starts from the idea that reality has two levels, with one level being changing
human life and the other being an eternal order that gives meaning to justice. 1 This higher
order cannot be touched or seen, yet it still functions as the perfect example against which
ordinary legal rules are judged.1 A person may not physically observe Justice itself, but
human reason can still recognise when a rule is unfair or morally wrong. 1 This is why natural
law does not treat legislation, custom or judicial decisions as the final word on justice.1
King‟s argument follows this structure Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
Martin Luther King Jr‟s statement is best understood as natural law, because it treats
justice as the standard that decides whether a human rule deserves obedience. 1 His
point is not that people may reject law whenever it is inconvenient, but that law must
answer to a moral measure outside state power. 2 Natural law accepts that a legal
rule can be tested against a higher idea of justice before it is accepted as binding on
conscience.3 This makes King‟s distinction between just and unjust law part of a long
debate about the link between law and morality. 4 His view matches the natural law
claim that positive law must meet the demands of a higher and more permanent form
of law.5
Natural law starts from the idea that reality has two levels, with one level being
changing human life and the other being an eternal order that gives meaning to
justice.6 This higher order cannot be touched or seen, yet it still functions as the
perfect example against which ordinary legal rules are judged.7 A person may not
physically observe Justice itself, but human reason can still recognise when a rule is
unfair or morally wrong.8 This is why natural law does not treat legislation, custom or
judicial decisions as the final word on justice.9 King‟s argument follows this structure
because unjust law may exist as a state command while still failing as a moral law. 10
The approach began in Greek thought, especially with Plato and Aristotle, who both
accepted that law must be understood with reference to something beyond changing
human opinion.11 Plato viewed human law as an imperfect copy of the eternal Ideal
of Justice, so a law made by people could be measured against that higher Ideal. 12
Aristotle explained the matter through Forms and purpose, because everything that
exists moves towards the purpose that gives it proper meaning.13 His distinction
1
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 63.
2
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63.
3
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 64.
4
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63-64.
5
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
6
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63.
7
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
8
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
9
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
10
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 61-65.
11
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
12
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 67.
13
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65-67.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
May June PORTFOLIO Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 1 June 2026
QUESTION 1
Martin Luther King Jr‟s statement is best understood as natural law, because it treats justice
as the standard that decides whether a human rule deserves obedience.1 His point is not
that people may reject law whenever it is inconvenient, but that law must answer to a moral
measure outside state power.1 Natural law accepts that a legal rule can be tested against a
higher idea of justice before it is accepted as binding on conscience.1 This makes King‟s
distinction between just and unjust law part of a long debate about the link between law and
morality.1 His view matches the natural law claim that positive law must meet the demands
of a higher and more permanent form of law.1
Natural law starts from the idea that reality has two levels, with one level being changing
human life and the other being an eternal order that gives meaning to justice. 1 This higher
order cannot be touched or seen, yet it still functions as the perfect example against which
ordinary legal rules are judged.1 A person may not physically observe Justice itself, but
human reason can still recognise when a rule is unfair or morally wrong. 1 This is why natural
law does not treat legislation, custom or judicial decisions as the final word on justice.1
King‟s argument follows this structure Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
Martin Luther King Jr‟s statement is best understood as natural law, because it treats
justice as the standard that decides whether a human rule deserves obedience. 1 His
point is not that people may reject law whenever it is inconvenient, but that law must
answer to a moral measure outside state power. 2 Natural law accepts that a legal
rule can be tested against a higher idea of justice before it is accepted as binding on
conscience.3 This makes King‟s distinction between just and unjust law part of a long
debate about the link between law and morality. 4 His view matches the natural law
claim that positive law must meet the demands of a higher and more permanent form
of law.5
Natural law starts from the idea that reality has two levels, with one level being
changing human life and the other being an eternal order that gives meaning to
justice.6 This higher order cannot be touched or seen, yet it still functions as the
perfect example against which ordinary legal rules are judged.7 A person may not
physically observe Justice itself, but human reason can still recognise when a rule is
unfair or morally wrong.8 This is why natural law does not treat legislation, custom or
judicial decisions as the final word on justice.9 King‟s argument follows this structure
because unjust law may exist as a state command while still failing as a moral law. 10
The approach began in Greek thought, especially with Plato and Aristotle, who both
accepted that law must be understood with reference to something beyond changing
human opinion.11 Plato viewed human law as an imperfect copy of the eternal Ideal
of Justice, so a law made by people could be measured against that higher Ideal. 12
Aristotle explained the matter through Forms and purpose, because everything that
exists moves towards the purpose that gives it proper meaning.13 His distinction
1
IJ Kroeze, Legal Philosophy: Only Study Guide for LJU4801 (University of South Africa 2017) 63.
2
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63.
3
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 64.
4
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63-64.
5
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
6
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 63.
7
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
8
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
9
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
10
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 61-65.
11
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65.
12
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 67.
13
Kroeze, Legal Philosophy 65-67.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
