NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you think of natural law? Good or bad?

What do you think of natural law? Good or bad?

What's the philosophy behind natural law, a while ago I heard it was sort of like libertarianism, but I don't really know the key differences.

It's poor. It results in authoritarian conclusions as it justifies the state and capitalism.

Well, theer can be no such thing as natural law unless there is such a thing as a natural legislator. After all, laws need to be codified by some entity. Therefore you can only consistently argue for the existence of natural law if you are arguing for the existence of G_d. I am not a believer myself so onvuiously I think the idea of natural law is nonsensical.

It's where socio-economic views end, and cultist behaviour begins.

I disagree with them on alot of things and agree on some, no vote from me or support of any kind except some agreement on some things

Too little information. "Natural Law" is a term used for a variety of different constructions many of them contradictory. Without knowing what natural law theory and branch thereof you are interested in I cannot give you an opinion. I support the general Aquinian (? belong to Aquinas) natural law theorem (do good, avoid doing evil), but his justification for existing human law under natural law leaves me unconvinced.

It's poor. It results in authoritarian conclusions as it justifies the state and capitalism.

so you are saying that you would prefer some sort of device to prevent natural law from dominating...

I support the general Aquinian (? belong to Aquinas) natural law theorem (do good, avoid doing evil), but his justification for existing human law under natural law leaves me unconvinced.
Aquinas wrote from a religious perspective so it is coherent for him to argue the existence of of a natural law and an absolute conception of good and evil. Without G_d we operate in a moral vacuum as concepts of good and evil are subject to human interpretation and are thus not absolute.

Aquinas wrote from a religious perspective so it is coherent for him to argue the existence of of a natural law and an absolute conception of good and evil. Without G_d we operate in a moral vacuum as concepts of good and evil are subject to human interpretation and are thus not absolute.I only threw (curses on English spelling) Aquinas in because I was going to list various forms of what the term "natural law" means and give my opinions of them, but I thought better of it. The next step for Aquinas is that the nature of man is based upon reason, and man's natural law is therefor based upon reason, I can accept Aquinas this far, and most modern natural law theorists take this as a departure point. Dworkin, for instance, has come up with a natural law theory absent the Divine, basing questions of good and evil on societal consensus.

One could make a fairly strong argument that certain things are considered evil by everyone - murder is always wrong, it is just that what constitutes murder varies. It is better to say not that the concepts of good and evil are subject to interpertation, just that waht is considered good and what is considered evil are subject to human interpertation. Kant's Categorical Imperative is a type of natural law based upon reason, however there is no requirement for the Divine in it, and it is not subject to interpetation.

But the term "Natural Law" is too widely and diversely used a term to be summed up simply, one can take an entire semester of an incomplete survey of "natural law" theories.

never been convinced by Dworkin. Societal consensus will always reflect some bias and if natural law is not universal then it is irrelevant as a concept.

never been convinced by Dworkin. Societal consensus will always reflect some bias and if natural law is not universal then it is irrelevant as a concept.
I agree that Dworkin's natural law isn't what most people mean when they say natural law. But he calls it natural law, and in a way it is - not absolute in what particular actions are prohibited and allowed but absolute in how what is prohibited and allowed is determined. And it does provide an alternative to positive law (the legal philosophy not the legal theory about publication Once again the same term being used for different things.).

Natural law theorists tend to stray into generalisation and the more general they get the less usefull their ideas are. Some of them are however cleverer than me so it doesnt always pay to argue. Time to logg off but this was a fun chat. See ya later.

The poll is really vague. The present, positive law, system in most western countries is pretty much based on ideas of natural law.

I, for one, do not support using the bible etc. for new legislative purposes. I think we have "Don't kill" and most of the good and sensible stuff already covered.

The poll and the question are too vague. Do mean natural law in the sense of anarchy and strongest takes all? In the sense of 'if it's unjust you dont have to obey'? Or something else?

The next step for Aquinas is that the nature of man is based upon reason, and man's natural law is therefor based upon reason, I can accept Aquinas this far, and most modern natural law theorists take this as a departure point.

Well ... Aquinas was very naive.

The poll is really vague. The present, positive law, system in most western countries is pretty much based on ideas of natural law.

I, for one, do not support using the bible etc. for new legislative purposes. I think we have "Don't kill" and most of the good and sensible stuff already covered.
I don't think it reasonable to assume that most western nations so in fact ascribe to positive law these days, in terms of positive law versus natural law I am pretty sure most of the West has some form of natural law - usually an offends the social conciouness clause. Perhaps if the growing interest in universal human rights law becomes properly codified into an international human rights law it will revert to being a positve law system, but for now it seems that, at least in human rights areas, the west is subscribing to natural law theory.

Natural law is a philosophical concept of the philosophers of the enlightenment at the end of the 18 th century. People are supposed to be born free. In that way they challenged the feudalistic system and the abolutistic monarchy.
Natural law is not natural in the sense that it is the law people always followed. It is actually a philosophical concept.
Whether that is useful or not is another question. The liberal and democratic movements used it to demand a political say from the monarchs in the 19 th century. In many countries "natural law"- ideas where however implemented via written constituitions.
In an Roman law system written law is the basis for codification in contrast to common law which was based on precendence. The concept of "Natural law" is not in compliance with the idea of a written law. Since written constituitions were established and some liberal ideas were fulfilled during the 19 th century the idea of natural law lost support in continental Europe. Instead of that the idea of a positivistic law became the dominant opinion. That theory states that there is nothing else beyond the postitive (written) law and constituition. This school was for example dominant in Germany at the end of the 19 th and the first half of the 20 th century. The constituition of the first german republic was written by legal positivists as well as the laws which destroyed the republic and which legally justified the dictatorship of the NSDAP and Hitler and their actions in 1933 and the twelf years afterwards.
"Order is order, law is law" was the concept. That of course makes it very easy to turn around a legal system from one of a democratic state based on the rule of law to a totalitarian dictatorship.
After 1945 the positivistic school which dominated till then therefore lost credibility. The Radbruch formula implemented elements of Natural law. It states that even an unjust law has a benefit due to the fact that it creates legal security but that laws can be so unjust that to fulfill them is against principles which every human is supposed to understand (natural law). In that case defiance of those laws is not only justified but even an obligation. After all: even soldiers have the right to reject orders if they are against the laws of war (at least in theory). So, the lawyers should have the same right argues Radbruch.
With that formula by the way the prosecution of many war criminals was justified who of course said "We just fulfilled orders." But that is not an argument according to the Radbruch formula. Even if the orders were formally correct and ordered by the instituition which has legally the right to be in the commanding position the executer of the order can not hide himself behind it. That may be different if he could reasonable expect to be executed for his defiance. However it is for the person to prove that this thread existed. But the fact that his career may be harmed is not an argument which is useable.
This principle was also used by other prosecutions of war criminals or crimes which happened under a dictatorship, like the East German soldiers who killed people who wanted to flee to West Berlin or the trials of war criminals in former Jugoslavia.
So: natural law in that sense can overrule positive laws if they are extremly unjust - but only then. However what is extremly unjust? Today the UN Charta and other international human rights conventions give guidelines for that which the national courts (especially the court for constituitional matters) has to take into account.

Only the weak and dimwitted are opposed to Natural Law and other ideologies loosesly associated with it, like Social Darwinism. Natural Law in its purest form promotes the physically fit and mentally capable, anyone opposed to that is well, obviously not fit nor capable.

Only the weak and dimwitted are opposed to... Social Darwinism.
If you are at all interested in Darwinism and it's cynical perversions, then you should read this:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html