Evaluate, by comparing at least 2 jurisprudential theories that address the state’s duties regarding ‘social justice’, which of these jurisprudential theories, according to you, best attains the stated aims to achieve social justice in the first paragraph of the Grootboom case as well as in the Preamble of the Constitution
The two jurisprudential theories that could be compared in relation to the state's duties regarding social justice are natural law theory and legal positivism.
Natural law theory holds that the law is based on universal moral principles, which transcends human laws and standards. According to this theory, the state has a duty to ensure social justice as it is derived from natural laws that promote equality, fairness, and human dignity. In the Grootboom case and the Preamble of the Constitution, social justice is aimed at ensuring the well-being and dignity of all individuals in society.
On the other hand, legal positivism posits that the validity of law is determined by social institutions and conventions rather than moral principles. According to this theory, the state's duty to achieve social justice is based on positive legal norms and principles established by the state. In the context of the Grootboom case and the Constitution, social justice is seen as a legal obligation that must be enforced through legislative and judicial means.
In my opinion, natural law theory is better suited to achieving social justice as it provides a universal and moral foundation for addressing societal inequalities and promoting the well-being of all individuals. This theory emphasizes the inherent dignity and rights of individuals, which aligns with the aims of social justice as outlined in the Grootboom case and the Constitution. Legal positivism, while important in ensuring the enforcement of laws, may fall short in addressing the underlying moral principles that are essential for achieving true social justice.