Josh and colin are driving down the highway in josh's new convertible. josh steps on the gas and accelerates to 110 miles per hour, almost double the 60 miles per hour speed limit. colin urges josh to slow down, saying, "the law is the law, and you should follow it even if you think it's unfair." josh responds, "it's unjust to have a law about how fast people can drive their own cars. let's see how fast i can go! " in this scenario, josh and colin's differing legal philosophies seem to adhere most closely to: a. natural law for josh, and legal positivism for colin. b. legal positivism for josh, and natural law for colin. c. legal realism for josh, and legal positivism for colin. d. legal positivism for josh, and legal realism for colin.

The best answer to the question: In this scenario, Josh and Colin´s differing legal philosophies seem to adhere most closely to:___, would be, A: Natural law for Josh and Legal Positivism for Colin.

Explanation:

Josh and Colin have a very different approach to how they interpret the event that is taking place: Josh speeding above the limits imposed by the law. To Josh, natural law applies because to him no imposed law should limit his ability to race the car, and prevent him from using the full potential. There should be no limit unless it is his own limit, to what he can d, or not do. However, Colin wishes Josh to respect the law, not because its a law in itself, but because it is what is right and accepted by the society they live in. So he adheres to Legal Positivism which is basically referred to as adherence to the law not for its merit as a law, but rather because it is socially accepted and therefore has a backing system to it. This is why the answer is A.

natural law for Josh, and legal positivism for Colin.

Explanation:

answer; i believe that the correct answer is (tabula rasa);