I would say judicial positivism.
"You call one of them, I presume, a virtue and the other a vice?" "Of course." "Justice the virtue and injustice the vice?"

Plato, The Republic, 348c, Plato V, Republic I, Books I-V, translated by Paul Shorey, Loeb Classical Library

I guess you could like check out this table of Freisan school about moralism and ethics (Key Distinctions for Value Theories.)



[img]http://

For whom in what time and which place?

As I address the readers of the post: the who would be you, the when would be now, and the place would be wherever you happen to be.

This is interesting. I have not read much legal philosophy, so I admit a great deal of ignorance on this topic. A quick reference to my library and the Stanford encyclopedia leads me to some confusion. To borrow some language from classical philosophy, it appears that legal positivism refers more to conventional law; my curiosity was more in regard to natural law. So, I'm curious if you see a connection between the two, and, if so, what is the bridge?

What makes me so important that I should preside over other people's moral judgements?

Are you asking the question how do we (best) justify morality?

So, I'm curious if you see a connection between the two, and, if so, what is the bridge? — duckrabbit19

There is a connection but just in behaviour. We are agree here that natural law comes first and then positive law. Nevertheless, they are connected because of structuralism. Thus, necessarily all the aspects in human nature needs to be performed in the system with a development.
Natural law is there and supposedly always been but we, citizens, transformed it to conventional law just to secure the application.