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 mirror reflection of a social "natural moral order". It is a philosophy that embraces goodness and overall equality, but which rejects the mere mention of evil. It requires that a law be implemented in compliance with the fundamental rights of all its citizens and, at the same time, promote the common good. “Naturalism holds that human practices and institutions must be measured against these “higher” standards, and where they fall short of the goal, specific human arrangements, be they statutes, executive orders, or constitutions, fail fully to have the character of law” (Adams p.19). Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't 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 law and practical law are intertwined to such an extent that they seek to achieve an understanding and appreciation of what society should value, what society should seek in life, and the appropriate means by which to achieve these goals. In essence, Thomas Aquinas argued that “good must be done and evil avoided” (Adams p.23). An example of natural law, as Thomas Aquinas notes, would be the return of a borrowed object to its rightful owner. This, in the eyes of natural law, is seen as a morally sound and necessary gesture. It's the "right" thing to do. Natural law, therefore, places much emphasis on the concepts of morality and law, so much so as to suggest that an immoral law is no law at all. Legal realism, on the other hand, signifies a much more distinct quality when compared against the backdrop of natural law theory. Legal realism purposely failed to subscribe to the arguments posed by natural law, arguing that the theory was too obscure and vague to have any meaningful connection. “Instead, legal realism defines the law roughly as a method of resolving disputes by appealing to the higher authority of an office, or to put it more succinctly, it says that the law is exactly what judges say it is” ( Adams p.116). The theory contests that legal realism is not an entity of rigid, standardized, immutable rules, but rather that it lends itself to law as a social institution with sufficient flexibility so that the competing interests of various groups within 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 above, 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 distinguishable proposal between these two elements of legal reasoning. It attaches no meaning to how “morally right” or “morally wrong” a statute is. Rather, decisions come from a judge's intuition, or simple intuition, but are worded in such a way as to make it appear as if the conclusions of a case were formulated in a systematic and logical manner. More importantly, law, in reference to legal realists, is a matter of prediction. For example, by identifying a judge's political ideology (i.e. liberal or conservative), yesmay be able to deduce how the judge might decide a particular case. “Despite this, legal realism repeatedly emphasizes the indeterminacy or vagueness of stare decisis by emphasizing that a particular ruling never binds a decision-maker in any future case, because the decision-maker can always find some aspect of the later case to differentiate it from the earlier one. one” (Adams p.64). Furthermore, the holding in a specific case is greatly influenced by the personal social context that a judge brings to the trial of the case. Decisions are the product of subjective points of view, but quite consistent with the history of law, offered by the court. Decisions are composed of individual interpretations and individual social philosophies. In applying natural law to this particular case, one would most likely argue in strong opposition to the Blue and Gray Taxi Company that acts and practices, such as those that have transpired here, appear clearly immoral and manipulative. Given the theoretical content of natural law, the Joneses' charges would have been immediately rejected by the courts. The case would have ended in a drastically alternative 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 company deprived other businesses (i.e., the Purple Taxi Co.) of their right to openly engage in a free commercial market. He denied the Purple Taxi Company, for example, from soliciting business in or around the area that had been allocated exclusively to the Joneses. This designated area, located adjacent to the railroad company's depot, was to be used solely at the discretion of the Blue and Gray Taxi Company. They were supposed to be the only lawyers in the taxi business. In essence, the two companies were forming a sort of coalition in order to implement a sort of monopoly on other competing companies. This sort of corporate monopoly the two were forming served no moral purpose. He has done absolutely nothing to promote a sense of equal opportunity and, furthermore, he has shown minimal respect for the interests of other citizens. Second, the contract itself, under Kentucky state law, was considered illegal. Under Kentucky law, the contract negotiated between the railroad company and the Blue and Gray Taxi Company had no legal standing. It was not valid and therefore could not be legally respected. The lawyer 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 had a very good chance of being decided in his favor. His intentions, therefore, were not to respect Kentucky law, but to make fun of it and all its citizens. His tactics were strictly one-sided and selfish. As a result, a common good was never achieved. What he did, although legally permitted, was immoral and unjust. Henceforth, natural law would dictate that such conduct failed to fully describe the true character of the law and, therefore, would not be binding law. Applying legal realism, the case would not have ended much differently than it did. . The decision would remain the same. Given the nature of the content that defines legal realism, one would have inferred that what the Joneses and the railroad company had done was legally.