In my opinion there is no problem with this "artificial" category. For the everyday individual (which must include the legislators whilst outside their "legal personality"), the process of following the law becomes simply that - a process of following the law - not a governing factor of what should be moral belief. .
In regards to the creation of a "classist" society, Natural Law appears to produce a more unequal legal system than that of the positivists, for the moral beliefs of the ruling persons are not only set down as law, but are told to the people that this is the correct moral belief - not allowing, if all people are to accept the laws, alternate moral beliefs. A creation of a conflict of moral interest prevents individuality occurring - within natural law there is the moral point that laws should be followed, and as such should anyone morally oppose a law, they would have to put their feelings aside. At least with positive law one can still choose not to follow the law on moral grounds if they choose - for they can still have a moral opinion.
This is the central point to the "Nazi debate" as described by Cotterrell. Basically the arguments as set out by Cotterrell surround a post war decision in a German court to rule against a Nazi law. Both the natural theorists and the positivists agree with the decision. Natural theorists argue that the ruling is a win for Natural theory. Different Natural theorists differ in reasoning - Gustav Radbruch claims that the court said that the law was morally wrong and as such the purported law wasn't actually law. Morality and compatibility with human rights is essential for valid law, and as such this law never existed. Lon Fuller argued a similar line, rather saying that the morality of law is required in order to get people to follow the law, and because the law lacked that morality, the law couldn't be expected to be followed and as such isn't really law.
