From Wikipedia: "Ancient natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. The foundations of law are accessible through reason, and it is from these laws of nature that human laws gain whatever force they have",
Analytic jurisprudence (which is what I think you are talking about) is something that people think is more important (a belief, codified in law) than Natural Law. But Common Law, derives from Natural Law and it still has a place in this area of focus even though people believe that it doesn't, or it shouldn't. The actual harms in society are caused by the belief that laws can be legislated though power dynamics. Analytic jurisprudence cannot contend with the idea that all law, stems from natural law, and when you deviate from it, it cause harms for society. Plus it's at the whim of people in power. Just because it happens, doesn't make it right or required.
Jurisprudence is the study and theory and philosophy of law. It's the whole giant field, it's not a specific position. If you think it's a settled topic, or obvious, you haven't studied it.
I'm saying that one specific part (Natural Law) is the foundation for all law and is more important then all the others parts when it comes to behavior of individuals and corporations. Natural law takes presence over it all because it's the foundation of all law.
That's nice. The folks who believe in legal positivism have a different point of view. And then some people think these things can both simultaneously be a basis. And there are 27(made up) different positions on the topic. Hence the field of study known as jurisprudence, where very smart people waste time sitting around debating this stuff forever.
Analytic jurisprudence (which is what I think you are talking about) is something that people think is more important (a belief, codified in law) than Natural Law. But Common Law, derives from Natural Law and it still has a place in this area of focus even though people believe that it doesn't, or it shouldn't. The actual harms in society are caused by the belief that laws can be legislated though power dynamics. Analytic jurisprudence cannot contend with the idea that all law, stems from natural law, and when you deviate from it, it cause harms for society. Plus it's at the whim of people in power. Just because it happens, doesn't make it right or required.