What is Natural Law? Today, it is often pulled out as representative of the Christian concept of civil government and godly policy. It is anything but that.
First, I should clarify that by the term "natural law," I'm not referring to biological law. Nor am I referring to the philosophical proof that says man can inductively reason that there's a natural law governing us. When I refer to natural law, I'm referring to the judicial concept of determining "the law" from nature.
The following is a simplistic definition from dictionary.com: Natural law equals "a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society." Dictionary.com, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural+law. A more complex definition comes from Wikipedia:
"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]
"Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[4] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5][full citation needed] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
"Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph Declaration of Independence [6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings (Thomas Hobbes)."
Wikipedia, accessed on November 22, 2014 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law.
In spite of all the language in these definitions that might be attractive to support a Christian worldview, words like "universally cognizable," "religious," "natural justice," and "natural right," a very pertinent question should immediately arise. If we have a law in the bible, given to us directly from God through Moses, inerrant, eternal, and ideal in comparison to all human-derived law, whether natural or otherwise, why do we need a law "universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature." A correlative question is "universally cognizable" according to whom? According to those who contend that Marxism is the natural state of affairs, those that claim that same sex marriage is natural and normal, those that claim anarchy is the natural state of mankind? Which is it? Or choose a fourth alternative, a tenth, a hundredth! How many variations of opinion can there be as to what is "universally cognizable?"
If natural law, the law of the Creator for the world He made, is "universally cognizable," why did the God of the Hebrews, asserted to be the Creator, state that "after the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?" Leviticus 18:3, KJV. Why did the land of Egypt not cognize natural law? Why did Canaan walk in different ordinances from that of natural law? Would we have been able to tell the Canaanites: "Say, your laws are not natural; you should follow natural law." Would they have said, "Oh, we have not cognized the correct law based on nature. We will gladly change our ordinances." I have my doubts. In fact, why would the Israelites themselves need a law from God as dictated to Moses? Wasn't it natural and "universally cognizable" to them already?
Natural law has the benefit of the semblance of universality and permanence; however, the question would well depend on who is determining what it is from day to day. Just do a google search some time of the words natural law, and you will find every form of flakiness and philosophically bizarre ideas you'll ever encounter.
Natural law is a compromise between Christians and unbelievers. The Christian says, "Okay, we understand you're not a believer in our religious book, but surely you believe in something more permanent than personal opinion. Can't we agree to work out laws that we both agree are based on a universal moral law, not based solely on personal opinion, something that's fair?" Over the centuries, here's where we've arrived. The unbeliever: "Remember that agreement we made centuries ago. Well, we don't believe in keeping those types of things, and we never really agreed with this idea of universal law anyway. So, here's what's natural: Same sex marriage, killing babies in the womb and selling their parts, and the obliteration of the artificially created free market system of economics. Oh and by the way, don't even think of bringing up that biblical law idea as an alternative, you tyrant who wants to force theocracy on everyone!"
And this result is what we deserve. In ancient Israel, what caused the loss of their society to the pagans? Compromise with paganism. God is a jealous God, and he doesn't share His glory with anyone. That includes natural law. If He had wanted us to figure it out using our reason and based on nature, then why would He give us a revealed law, explicit, specific, and written down for us by inspired prophets?
No comments:
Post a Comment