Natural Law -- Based on Faith, or Reason

[utunumsint]

Greetings,

The Catechism states the following

346 In creation God laid a foundation and established laws that remain firm, on which the believer can rely with confidence, for they are the sign and pledge of the unshakeable faithfulness of God’s covenant.214 For his part man must remain faithful to this foundation, and respect the laws which the Creator has written into it.

and

354 Respect for laws inscribed in creation and the relations which derive from the nature of things is a principle of wisdom and a foundation for morality.

I presume that these teachings are foundational to the concept of Natural Law, however, is there a philosophical justification for natural law not based on Aquinas/Aristotle, or Augustine/Plato?

God bless,
Ut

 

[cpayne]

You might check into Cicero or the Stoic tradition (both non-Christian), or into traditions such as that of Mencius and Confucius in China, both of whom appear to be not only non-Christian but non-theist. Also the jus gentium** of the Romans.

 

[utunumsint]

Thank you cpayne. I’m familiar with Cicero and Confusions. Mencius and jus gentium are new ones to me. I’ll definetly look into it.

Do you know any mordern philosphers that support natural law arguments, or law makers (any lawmaker in the world for that matter) who legislate based on natural law arguments?

God bless,
Ut

 

[cpayne]

Sure; the most famous is probably Alasdair MacIntyre, then maybe John Finnis and Germain Grisez. A bunch are maybe not “philosophers” per se, but rather teachers of philosophy—for example, J. Budziszewski, Ralph McInerny, Peter Kreeft, Robert P. George, Francis Beckwith, and so on. They’re all alive; famous recently deceased would be J. Maritain, Josef Pieper, and so on.

Probably the living writer who has done the most to popularize natural law theory would be J. Budziszewski.

 

[cpayne]

By the way, now that I think of it, the *jus gentium *of the Romans owes a lot to Aristotle, and you specifically excluded him. Sorry.

 

[cpayne]

One more thing—you mentioned law makers. Clarence Thomas, on the American Supreme Court, has studied Thomistic natural law extensively, and of course there’s the reference to the “laws of Nature and Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence.

A natural law theorist might argue that probably ALL law makers incorporate natural law thinking into their laws, even if they do not know that’s what it is.

 

[Greg27]

Natural law is very important, not just in Catholicism but more so in the philosophy of law or jurisprudence. Many ideas in law for example, such as those invoking human rights, or constitutional government, have their basis in theories of natural law. Natural law theories have been developed in Greek and Roman Philosophy, which influenced men such as Aquinas, though other philosophers in the medieval period preferred to base morality on what might now be called ‘divine command theory’ - a moral percept is right because God commands it. Medieval philosophers who emphasized God’s omnipotent power - such as Ockham - adopted this approach.

Professor John Finnis has written a lot on natural law. He is a good jurist and also a Catholic - I don’t necessarily agree with his arguments, but he does give a rational and clear account of natural law thinking. I think there is a lot of merit in the notion of natural law, though not necessarily from the same theological perspective as the CC adopts.

 

[Oakleaf]

I for one would like to see more “natural law” arguments that begin with a honest observation of the natural world. Law coming from custom has its own different kind of legitimacy in many cases, but social custom and nature are not the same thing.

 

[cpayne]

I for one would like to see more “natural law” arguments that begin with a honest observation of the natural world. Law coming from custom has its own different kind of legitimacy in many cases, but social custom and nature are not the same thing.

Observation of the natural world does lead to a type of natural law thinking, but it’s not really the Thomistic type, the type usually associated with the CC. Thomistic natural law focuses on human nature, not the natural world. If we focused on the natural world instead, I’m pretty sure we could come up with good arguments for the morality of rape and murder (for example).

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 080920 Saturday
Dear utunumsint –
I like your user name. It’s equivalent to, “So that God may be all in all.” 1 Cor 15:28. That day will be!

You asked a question, “Is there a philosophical justification for natural law not based on Aquinas/Aristotle, or Augustine/Plato?” Absolutely yes. After I’ve shared a little I’ll refer you to two of the most valued books I’ve encountered in my long life.

In our search for truth with our rational intellect we continually seek to purify and enlarge what we come to know to more and more simple and basic and comprehensive understandings.

There is reasoning … and there is (using this term philosophiclly) intuition. Using reasoning we grasp A … and then grasp B … then see a connection between the two … and draw a new conclusion, C. Using intuition we grasp the conclusion instantly. Example= 1 plus 1 equals 2. We’ve gone beyond reasoning to an immediate grasp of a truth.

Some of these intuitions are easier to grasp for some people than for others (babies, children, mentally impaired). St Thomas even refers to the “sapientes” among us all, to those who are “more wise” – not because of superiority but simple by their circumstances.

There are a few most basic truths of reality we are able to grasp. These are described as “metaphysical truths” and they are absolutely necessary and universal and not dependent on any decision by God. They are rather a kind of reflection of God Himself necessarily in God’s creation. One can appreoach them with the help of reason but when one finally “grasps” the meaning, all reasoning becomes merely preparatory and is no longer necessary. One has not only “grasped” the particular truth, one has BECOME that truth; it has entered into “our bones” and cannot be removed. We grasp them by an intution, an immediate recognition of their truth.

They are often described this way –
1 – The Principle of Identity= Every being is what it is … and is not something else. (“Principle” here means a source-truth from which other truths can be derived either by reasoning or by another intuition.)
2 – The Principle of Sufficient Reason (better name=of Adequate Explanation)= Every being – and this includes GOD – has, either in itself or in another, a sufficient accounting for its existence.
2a – The Principle of Contradiction (this is really a corollary to “Sufficient Reason”)= A being cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same situation.
3 – The Principle of Finality= Every being that acts (is an agent), acts for a specific purpose.

To intuit these basics and “metaphysically necessary” took me slow and patient efforts and God’s Blessing over quite a few years. Now I don’t believe or accept them from an other. I KNOW their eternal truth even better than I know myself.

All the above is in no way dependent upon God’s revelation or supernatural grace. All the above is available to any human being with the use of his/her faculties.

I said I would mention two books. The first is priceless and difficult. The second is almost priceless and easier to read and understand. Its writer has a remarkable gift to make clear the difficult. Here they are –
1 – The Degrees of Knowledge, by Jacques Maritain, 1959, Charles Scribner’s Sons; translation by Phelan, not by Bernard Wall.
2 – Nature, Knowledge, and God, by Brother Benignus FSC, Bruce Publishing (no longer exists), 1947.
Don’t turn your nose up about the old dates. The Bible’s pretty old too, you know. I can point toward where getting the second book.

Blessing of Jesus and Mary on you and on all.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

two books