Natural Law

[John Human]

The natural law tradition dates back to the Roman statesman/philosopher Cicero (older than Jesus Christ), with earlier roots in the thinking of Aristotle and Plato before him. Since the dawn of Christianity (with Romans 2:14-15 being understood by Church Fathers as a Pauline reference to natural law), this tradition of moral philosophy has been interwoven with Christian morality. Thomas Aquinas was of course the most famous medieval exponent of natural law.

Later, in the 17th century, the Rev. Richard Cumberland of England wrote a treatise on natural law that omitted references to Christian doctrine and reset the exposition of natural law on an explicitly Ciceronian foundation. Cumberland was followed by the Scottish Rev. Francis Hutcheson, Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (a professor of jurisprudence at the University of Geneva) and Burlamaqui’s Swiss student Emer de Vattel, all of whom influenced the Founders of the USA.

Question: Is natural law a useful guide for personal moral behavior and government policymaking?

[John Human]

Natural law is (or purports to be) right reason applied to human nature, deducing rules for appropriate behavior.

From this, there follows the question of what is human nature...

[Divine Insight]

Question: Is natural law a useful guide for personal moral behavior and government policymaking?

What are you referring to by the use of "Natural Law".

When I search for the definition of this term I obtain two dramatically different definitions.

1. a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct.

and

2. an observable law relating to natural phenomena


I'm assuming you must be referring to definition #1 since definition #2 has nothing to do with human moral values.

As far as I'm concerned, definition #1 has never been shown to be anything more then human wishful thinking. In other words, it's never been demonstrated that any such thing actually exists.

Here's a more detailed definition of "Natural Law" given by Wikipedia.

Natural law (Latin: ius natural, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason

I reject the idea that any such thing has ever been demonstrated to exist in any objective sense. The reason I reject this had to do with the last part of the definition - —and that these can be understood universally through human reason

No one has ever come up with a complete and sound system of morality that has been universally accepted by everyone via human reason.

There are things that most humans do agree on. However even those things are typically human-centric which is what we would expect from a purely subjective morality.

In other words, most humans would value a human life over the life of any other animal. Well, duh? You don't need to introduce any concept of natural law to explain human's bias for humans.

But when it comes to how animals should be treated human opinions on those moral values differ wildly. So I don't see any"Natural Law of Morality". All I see is human bias. And humans can't even agree on the morality of even human activity. For example opinion on morality vary widely when it comes to think like sexual preference, who should be permitted to marry whom, what gender a person should identify with and how a particular gender should even behave.

So I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of any "Natural Law of morality" that can be understood "universally". It simply doesn't exist.

So if that's the definition of the "Natural Law of Morality" then it doesn't exist.

From this, there follows the question of what is human nature...

You don't even need to go there since you already can't obtain a universal consensus on the first part.

[ttruscott]

Question: Is natural law a useful guide for personal moral behavior and government policymaking?

Since the nature of people born on earth is sinful then their natural expression is probably demonic.

You only reference pagans and theists, no Deists nor Christians. NO committed Christian cares about humanistic philosophy....although a notice of your actual question suggests that the government of the day probably loves natural law since it is all anti-Christ.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 4 by ttruscott]

That sounds mighty close to a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I have engaged quite a few committed Christians that care of human philosophy.

[John Human]

Since the nature of people born on earth is sinful then their natural expression is probably demonic.

You only reference pagans and theists, no Deists nor Christians. NO committed Christian cares about humanistic philosophy....although a notice of your actual question suggests that the government of the day probably loves natural law since it is all anti-Christ.

[John Human]

Christopher St. Germain's 16th-century "Doctor and Student," the English classic on equity that was "thoroughly annotated" by Thomas Jefferson (because he was studying to be an equity lawyer), gives the following summary of natural law, after noting that while theologians say "law of nature," lawyers prefer "reason":

https://lonang.com/library/reference/st ... d-student/

The law of reason teacheth, that good is to be loved, and evil is to be fled: also that thou shalt do to another, that thou wouldest another should do unto thee; and that we may do nothing against truth; and that a man must live peacefully with others; that justice is to be done to every man; and also that wrong is not to be done to any man; and that also a trespasser is worthy to be punished... And this law also suffereth many things to be done as that it is lawful to put away force with force; and that it is lawful for every man to defend himself and his goods against an unlawful power.

In other words:
1. Do good and avoid evil.
2. The Golden Rule
3. Be completely honest.
4. Live peacefully with your neighbors.
5. Act justly toward all.
6. Wrongdoers deserve punishment.
7. It is permitted to use force to defend oneself and one's property against lawbreakers and "an unlawful power" (oppressive government).

[2ndRateMind]

...From this, there follows the question of what is human nature...

For those interested, this book is good, and interesting, on human nature.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[2ndRateMind]

I wonder if you can reduce the idea of natural law to the notion that anything which causes humanity and/or particular humans to thrive and flourish is in accordance with natural law, and that anything that doesn't is contrary to natural law? And I am not only talking materially, here, but also mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

In this view, human nature is not only a matter of what we are, but also of what we could and should be.

Best wishes, 2RM

[John Human]

...From this, there follows the question of what is human nature...

For those interested, this book is good, and interesting, on human nature.

Best wishes, 2RM.

2RM, I would be interested to know if that book, "Ten Theories of Human Nature," says anything about the natural law theory of human nature.

In a nutshell, starting with the word "nature": Aristotle stated that “the nature of a thing is its end,� which means its fully developed or "perfected" manifestation. Humans are inherently social, so the "perfection" or mature development of social human nature means the development of government. That is our "natural" state, not a primitive Hobbesian "state of nature."

Aristotle had no notion of universal benevolence ("love your neighbor as yourself"), but Cicero did, and here is the start of the natural law tradition.
For both Aristotle and Cicero, the "perfection" (or mature development) of individual human nature is characterized by habitual virtue, while happiness -- the goal of human existence -- is the byproduct of habitual virtue. WARNING: The meaning of "happiness" has changed over the past 200 years or so. These days, the word "happiness" -- as used in the Declaration of Independence, for example -- would typically be expressed as "well-being."

Aristotle identifies justice as "the virtue that implies all the rest," and Cicero follows, describing justice as "the mistress and queen of all the virtues." This fits our inherently social nature, with justice meaning acting toward others as they deserve. And here is where Cicero goes beyond Aristotle and founds the natural law tradition: For Cicero, benevolence (active love of our fellow humans) is an essential component of the preeminent virtue of justice.

I wonder if you can reduce the idea of natural law to the notion that anything which causes humanity and/or particular humans to thrive and flourish is in accordance with natural law, and that anything that doesn't is contrary to natural law? And I am not only talking materially, here, but also mentally, emotionally and spiritually.

I think you're in the ballpark, but I suspect that your formulation ("can reduce to") is an oversimplification. The following quote from Henry B. Veatch's Rational Man: A Modern Interpretation of Aristotelian Ethics
might resonate with the point that you're trying to express:

“Whether we call it human perfection or human happiness, human moral goodness or human well-being, it is obvious that, on such a view of ethics, human excellence or virtue will be, in Plato’s words, ‘a kind of health and beauty and good habit of the soul; and vice will be a disease and sickness and deformity of it.’�

JSS