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?

[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.

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.

JSS

I don't think so. Some time since I read it, and I don't rightly recall. But, despite its exorbitant price, I have ordered the sequel, 'Thirteen Theories of Human Nature', which includes sections on Aristotle, Islam and Darwinism, so I shall read that when it arrives and let you know, in due course.

Incidentally, the concept of 'natural law' is one I have not yet turned my attention to, and I am slightly floored by it. (I was once similarly floored at an interview for uni by a question concerning 'providence'). Such concepts appear simple, and useful, but their ramifications are nevertheless so immense and their consequences for my world-view so far reaching that I need a little time to consider.

So, more later, maybe.

Best wishes, 2RM

[John Human]

Such concepts appear simple, and useful, but their ramifications are nevertheless so immense

Indeed, the ramifications of the "natural law" world view directly contradict a fundamental conclusion of modern liberalism, which is presumably why natural law has been banished from academic study in a process of lobotomization of western culture, including the Orwellian re-writing of the meaning of the Declaration of Independence.

The natural law view stipulates that government (a natural development of human nature) exists to promote the "safety and happiness" of the people. This was the firmly-held view of the American Founders (except for some of the big slave-owners). I discussed that a bit, in relation to the thought of the American Founders, in my first thread on this forum: viewtopic.php?t=35191&start=10

In a nutshell, if it is the duty of government to promote the happiness of the people, and if happiness is the byproduct of habitual virtue (featuring benevolence -- as in the second commandment of Jesus Christ), then it is the duty of government to promote virtue among the people.

This was the view of the American Founders. In other words, the government has the obligation to legislate morality. On such a view, for example, pornography should be strictly prohibited. The Founders, including the non-Christian theists like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, also saw the Christian religion (with its various denominations) as essential to promoting virtue among the people. The so-called "separation of church and state," as part of our governmental order, was a later fabrication, but there are some tricky issues in there.

Nowadays, Christianity in the USA has been corrupted, and it no longer speaks to the majority of the population. So obviously, if society is going to fulfill its responsibility to cultivate habitual virtue in the younger generation (which is the democratic/republican alternative to chaos or iron-fisted authoritarian rule), we need another approach, or at least a supplemental approach.

We could compare our political system to an old car with a rust problem much more serious than the brownish patches that are already showing through the paint job. The way I see things, reductionist-materialist liberalism has rotted our educational system (especially higher education) to the core. Our society needs a brain transplant in order to survive, and the natural law philosophy of the American Founding is an excellent place to look for a model of the philosophical/cultural underpinning of a healthy society.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 12 by John Human]

So, for expedient reasons, such that it does not mess with my world view overmuch, I have decided to incorporate 'natural law' into my thinking as a synonym for 'objective morality'. And I see objective morality as a synonym for God's Will. (If God loves us, He must want the best for us; and I would concur that the happiness to be found in habitual virtue is the best for us).

However, God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent, and no human can claim thus, so I am inclined to think that no human actually knows God's Will, exact objective morality, or the precise detail of natural law. The best we can hope to do, in our subjective ways of understanding, is to narrow the gap between what we think natural law to be, and what God knows it to be.

And that poses a problem for a government that wants to legislate for virtue. How am I to decide whether the government's idea of virtue is more accurate than mine? And if the government legislates in some way contrary to my conscience, what options do I have? And if I am forced to be moral, am I really moral, at all?

Better, I think, to respect people's right to go to hell in their own way, provided they inflict no harm on others, so far as the law is concerned. And just maintain the public discourse, 'the Great Debate', at the highest quality possible, consistent with the level of education of that public.

Best wishes, 2RM.