Julius Nepos

I think I get it. So legal positivism refers to rules and guidelines that are set in stone, and legal naturalism is whatever the person in the situation thinks is right.

Though strangely, I'd go for legal naturalism in the mild example and legal positivism in the extreme example. I guess overall, whichever one prioritizes protecting innocent people (with minimizing suffering between all involved parties as a secondary objective) is the path I'd go for. I couldn't really bring myself to absolutely stick with either legal positivism or legal naturalism fully, since both would eventually make for some decisions I'd find really cruel and unfair.

Yeah, there's not many people who go either full legal positivism or full legal naturalism. But it's always interesting to me to see what people pick as their preference and why.

Well, I suppose complete legal positivism would be the lesser of the two evils. I mean, with what some people these days consider to be right (Muhammadism and encouraging killing, as an extreme example), it'd be much easier to deal with the occasional bad loopholes that arise from legal positivism, rather than dealing with so many people doing bad because "that's what they believe is right." Though I still think complete legal positivism is quite bad in its own right. Thanks for the in-depth explanations and examples, by the way!!