By laying down penalties for mischievous acts, the legislator would make it unprofitable for a man to harm his neighbour.
His natural law view understands principles of right to be grounded in principles of good; on this Aquinas sides with utilitarians, and consequentialists generally, against Kantians. Similarly, to say that an unjust law is "not really law" may only be to point out that it does not carry the same moral force or offer the same reasons for action as laws consistent with "higher law" Bix Thus, conceptual theories of law have traditionally been divided into two main categories: those like natural law legal theory that affirm there is a conceptual relation between law and morality and those like legal positivism that deny such a relation.
Bringing imperative force behind that content is another matter. Derivationists have to explain how we come to know what counts as an actualization of a human potency, and have to explain how we connect these via bridge principles with human goods.
If these passages get the weight that they deserve,5 Hume takes on the defining characteristics of moral realism, which he has to be in order to be a natural law theorist. I'm not sure what you mean.