Does the following paragraph from The Global Commons: An Introduction, by Susan Buck, a book I’m considering for my environmental politics course next term, make any sense?
In the sixteenth century, two schools of jurisprudence–analytic jurisprudence, or legal positivism, and natural law–led to competing views of international relations. To oversimplify, legal positivism describes the law and identifies actors and policies in a context that supports, if not encourages, capitalism, whereas natural law assumes the existence of a moral code that is independent of human needs and desires and against which human activity can be measured. One school of thought is individualistic, the other is egalitarian or hierarchical. (p.23)
16th century legal positivism “supports, if not encourages, capitalism”?
Natural law is “egalitarian or hierarchical”? (Emphasis added.)
Do those statements make a sense that I’m just missing?