Natural law, sometimes called natural justice or natural right, is moral law based upon human nature and the human condition. Natural law is universal at least insofar as circumstances are the same.
But let's begin with what it's not.
Natural law is not the laws of nature. The laws of nature, or scientific laws, are statements that describe and predict natural phenomena based on observation and experimentation. The laws of nature are the province of science which makes no attempt to prescribe morality. At best science will describe and predict the ethics and moralities of various cultures and civilizations.
Natural law is not civil law or positive law which are laws developed by a society through it's polity or by custom. Ideally, civil law will be based on natural law but that is not a given. Natural law precedes civil law and is based, in part, on the laws of nature.
Not everyone accepts the existence of natural law. We might imagine that murder and rape are perfectly moral choices in a state of nature and that civil law exists as a compact among men in which liberties are surrendered to society and police appointed to enforce this agreement. Murder and rape, then, become bad choices only because of this enforced civil law. In this view, civil law is more or less arbitrary, whatever people happen to agree on, and varies arbitrarily across cultures where different agreements have come into practice.
Natural law is also distinct from religion and culture though, again, we would expect each to reflect it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, natural law is not divine law. In particular, natural law does not require any religious belief. As such, it is accessible even to atheists. It should be possible to lead someone to it through reason and observation regardless of their religious or cultural background.
Of course, it is possible that natural law, as described here, does not exist. It may be that no matter how earnestly it is sought it cannot be discovered. If that is so then we are left with the two main alternatives: divine law and civil law with no way to independently evaluate the correctness of either.
There are some interesting problems that we must consider in claiming that there exists a natural law discoverable by reason and observation. First, it is not always followed. Second, we do see variation in ethics and morality across cultures and civilizations. And, third, it may not be what we expected or wanted to find.
If what is morally good is discoverable by reason and observation why is it so elusive?
One possibility is that natural law is not simple or obvious. It may require deep thought and intense study to discern. If so, this would answer the first two questions above. Saint Thomas argued that we are prone to the pursuit of apparent goods, things which seem attractive but which prove not to be so. This is hardly controversial. We can all recall times when we made choices that turned out badly. What is good is not always obvious.
If that is so then we should not be surprised to find cultural variation either. Science is a good analogy. Science is a method for describing and predicting natural phenomena. But the discovery of science was neither simple nor obvious and came to fruition first in Europe. Nobody would suggest that science is not real or that it is not universal merely for this historical fact.
However, others can learn science. We can imagine it being developed independently by different societies and we can observe it's spread and adoption as different people come to recognize it's value.
If natural law is like science, then, we would expect it to become widely adopted even if it arose uniquely. But that has not happened.
We would expect those who know and understand natural law to be in demand by those who see the value and need for it. But that has not happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment