Natural Law

[ActuallyAquinas]

Anyone have some references or books to learn (introduction preferably) about Natural Law?

 

[lynx]

It’s funny, I asked a similar question not too long ago and the response I received was that there are technically no books that describe natural law. Natural laws are the observable laws that a person discovers for themselves over time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

If you can naturally deduce it, it is a universal (natural) law.

 

[smithm29]

Charles Rice’s *50 Questions on Natural Law *is a pretty good introductory book. Jay Budziszewski has also written a few introductory books. CS Lewis’ The Abolition of Man is great, but it’s short and lacking on substance. I would personally recommend Lewis’ introduction followed by Rice’s book for its explanation of the Church’s role in interpreting the natural law.

Source, Yahoo Answers Style: I’m a grad student in philosophy and took a course on natural law last semester.

 

[John21652]

There are heaps of books which desribe Natural Law.

Natural Law has a history stretching back over 2000 years and has been the subject of philosophers, legal scholars and moralists down through the ages.

If you have access to this, then you have access to Google and much beyond.

Goggle Natural Law and the Stoics; Natual Law and Roman Law; or even try Augustine and Natural Law. A good starting point is the Catholic Encyclopediaand its article on Natural Law.

The Natural Law is not something you will just ‘discover for yourself over time’. Most people in this day and age don’t even know what it is and there are many who actively deny its existence. There are many who would have you beleive that Natural Law is just Theology in another form. It is a complex thing, yet simple to comprehend once you learn its basics. It’s complexity is in the discernment, using reason, required in recognising it and determining just how it applies to the society of man. For it must be discerned and that is a skill which many have lost.

Natural Law underpins much of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and our entire Western Christian civilization. The Catholic Catechism is predicated on Natural Law and says so. Magna Carter is a Natural Law document. So too, The United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution are Natural Law documents. So is the Australian Constitution, which actually mentions God and so too is the Common Law system of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. Unfortunately, much of the Natural Law foundations of the Christian west is being eroded by Positive Law, or man made law, which conflicts with Natural Law reasoning. The antithesis of Natural Law is moral relativity and an understanding of that is needed to better understand what Natural Law is and how it is to be discerned.

Written on the Heart:The Case For Natural Law

In Defense of Natural Law

 

[smithm29]

(snip)

I’d recommend Budziszweski’s What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide as an intro before Written on the Heart.

 

[Portrait]

Anyone have some references or books to learn (introduction preferably) about Natural Law?

Dear ActuallyAquinas,

Cordial greetings.

You may like to peruse the thread that I was involved in last year over in the ‘Philosphy’ forum entitled, “Can Homosexuality be proved wrong from Natural Law”. Whilst it applies the Natural Law argument to a specific topic, I rather think that you will also find much helpful material written obitier in that very lengthy and interesting debate.

My friend John above was also involved in that debate. Hello John, hope all is well.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Carlan]

Charles Rice’s *50 Questions on Natural Law *is a pretty good introductory book. Jay Budziszewski has also written a few introductory books. CS Lewis’ The Abolition of Man is great, but it’s short and lacking on substance. I would personally recommend Lewis’ introduction followed by Rice’s book for its explanation of the Church’s role in interpreting the natural law.

Source, Yahoo Answers Style: I’m a grad student in philosophy and took a course on natural law last semester.

Smith , Rice had a series on EWTN a year or so back.
I will pick up his 50Quetions, Thanks! Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

There are heaps of books which desribe Natural Law.

Natural Law has a history stretching back over 2000 years and has been the subject of philosophers, legal scholars and moralists down through the ages.

If you have access to this, then you have access to Google and much beyond.

Goggle Natural Law and the Stoics; Natual Law and Roman Law; or even try Augustine and Natural Law. A good starting point is the Catholic Encyclopediaand its article on Natural Law.

The Natural Law is not something you will just ‘discover for yourself over time’. Most people in this day and age don’t even know what it is and there are many who actively deny its existence. There are many who would have you beleive that Natural Law is just Theology in another form. It is a complex thing, yet simple to comprehend once you learn its basics. It’s complexity is in the discernment, using reason, required in recognising it and determining just how it applies to the society of man. For it must be discerned and that is a skill which many have lost.

Natural Law underpins much of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and our entire Western Christian civilization. The Catholic Catechism is predicated on Natural Law and says so. Magna Carter is a Natural Law document. So too, The United States Declaration of Independence and Constitution are Natural Law documents. So is the Australian Constitution, which actually mentions God and so too is the Common Law system of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. Unfortunately, much of the Natural Law foundations of the Christian west is being eroded by Positive Law, or man made law, which conflicts with Natural Law reasoning. The antithesis of Natural Law is moral relativity and an understanding of that is needed to better understand what Natural Law is and how it is to be discerned.

Written on the Heart:The Case For Natural Law

In Defense of Natural Law

Natural Law, Comes from God! Peace, Carlan

 

[John21652]

Natural Law, Comes from God! Peace, Carlan

Then how do you reconcile this statement, made by the Jesuit Phiolosopher Saurez, whose ‘greatness’ is right up there next to Aquinas?

“…even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has.”

Or this one from the equally great Dutch Philosopher Hugo Grotius, who wrote

What we have been saying would have a degree of validity even if we should concede that which cannot be conceded without the utmost wickedness, that there is no God.

What they are saying is that they are independent of the God that willed them.

 

[smithm29]

Many philosophers have said that natural law “doesn’t need God to function” or holds true regardless of the faith of the interpreter (you made the point in the other thread that other faiths do believe in the natural law). I agree that many different peoples with different views and understandings of God throughout history have exercised their reason and discovered the precepts of the natural law, but that doesn’t change two primary truths.

First, natural law comes from God and is meaningless outside of Him. As the Catechism states, "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. " In other words, law is not law without a lawgiver. Without God, why would we consider the natural law immutable? What not change its precepts and change our nature as we see fit? CS Lewis wrote the best exposition of this idea.

Second, the Catholic Church is the true interpreter of the natural law, vested with teaching authority by Jesus. Again the Catechism (calling from the Council) states, “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God”.

I don’t know if Saint Thomas actually said “truth is where you fin it” or not, but the quote (and its source) is relevant here. Saying that the teaching authority of the Church extends to the interpretation of natural law does not mean that other individuals or faiths have not correctly interpreted it. It simply means that the fullness of true interpretation rests with the Church in the exercise of the Magisterium, The fact that truth can be found without does not lessen the glory of the truth within.

And similarly, saying that the natural law is meaningless without a lawgiver giving it force does not mean that those who do not know the lawgiver are incapable of exercising their reason to discover the universal first principles. As you know, much of the work on natural law was done by pagans, and medieval Islamic scholars wrote quite a bit. Without the teaching authority of the Church, movement beyond those universal first principles is difficult. In fact, the natural law is a special way of participating in the divine life- sharing in God’s plan for creation by ordering our lives to his will by a use of our reason, in submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[John21652]

Many philosophers have said that natural law “doesn’t need God to function” or holds true regardless of the faith of the interpreter (you made the point in the other thread that other faiths do believe in the natural law). …

I don’t deny that the Natural Law comes from God. I was playing devils advocate to a degree. After all, what do you say to an atheist who says there is no God?

First, natural law comes from God and is meaningless outside of Him. As the Catechism states, "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. " In other words, law is not law without a lawgiver. Without God, why would we consider the natural law immutable? What not change its precepts and change our nature as we see fit? CS Lewis wrote the best exposition of this idea.

Lewis also wrote something about the right and wrong being a clue to the universe. How about reversing that and saying the universe as a clue to right and wrong? This is what Saure and Grotius were getting at. God does not hang around directing traffic. We need to discern for ourselves what is right and wrong most of the time and the workings of the universe and our place in it are how we discern the Natural Moral Law. Saure was a devout Catholic Jesuit, yet he could see that the Natural Law was not immediately knowable to all. You will retort that God gave us the Ten Commandments. I agree and I recall reading that He did so because men were forgetting what was written on their hearts. It is happening again and Lewis saw that.

Second, the Catholic Church is the true interpreter of the natural law, vested with teaching authority by Jesus.

Exactly. Jesus gave new/extra meaning to the Natural Law.

Again the Catechism (calling from the Council) states, “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God”.

Couldn’t agree with you more! However, look at how the enemies of the Church are relentlessly attacking her. The athiest says “there’s no god, all you are spouting is nonsense”. How do you rebutt that? By saying “yes there is a God”? Well, that’s not going to work, is it? You can show them that the Church is built on the Natural Law and explain to them that the Church is an interpreter of the Natural Law and then you must show them what it is and how coherent it is and how natural it is for the human condition. And you must argue against the moral relativists who will tell you there is no god and therefore your Natural Law is no better than my own personal beliefs.

I don’t know if Saint Thomas actually said “truth is where you fin it” or not, but the quote (and its source) is relevant here. Saying that the teaching authority of the Church extends to the interpretation of natural law does not mean that other individuals or faiths have not correctly interpreted it. It simply means that the fullness of true interpretation rests with the Church in the exercise of the Magisterium, The fact that truth can be found without does not lessen the glory of the truth within.

"The truth is found when men are free to pursue it."Franklin D. Roosevelt

“Oftentimes, to win us to our harm,
The instruments of darkness tell us truths;
Win us with honest trifles, to betray us
In deepest consequence.”
William Shakespeare, Macbeth

And similarly, saying that the natural law is meaningless without a lawgiver giving it force does not mean that those who do not know the lawgiver are incapable of exercising their reason to discover the universal first principles.

Exactly. That’s what Saurez and Grotius (and others) were getting at. The point is, rational people must ask themselves, “from whence does it come”!

As you know, much of the work on natural law was done by pagans, and medieval Islamic scholars wrote quite a bit. Without the teaching authority of the Church, movement beyond those universal first principles is difficult. In fact, the natural law is a special way of participating in the divine life- sharing in God’s plan for creation by ordering our lives to his will by a use of our reason, in submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

Natural Law has been likened to a science. It is an evolving and developing system. Have a read of this book, Ancient Law and then use the HTML version to read Chapter 3 **The Law of Nature and Equity ** - Ancient Law, its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas [1861]" and Spooner’s The Science of Justice and for a general rundown of Natural Law Theory, read this.

 

[Carlan]

Many philosophers have said that natural law “doesn’t need God to function” or holds true regardless of the faith of the interpreter (you made the point in the other thread that other faiths do believe in the natural law). I agree that many different peoples with different views and understandings of God throughout history have exercised their reason and discovered the precepts of the natural law, but that doesn’t change two primary truths.

First, natural law comes from God and is meaningless outside of Him. As the Catechism states, "The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted. " In other words, law is not law without a lawgiver. Without God, why would we consider the natural law immutable? What not change its precepts and change our nature as we see fit? CS Lewis wrote the best exposition of this idea.

Second, the Catholic Church is the true interpreter of the natural law, vested with teaching authority by Jesus. Again the Catechism (calling from the Council) states, “The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God”.

I don’t know if Saint Thomas actually said “truth is where you fin it” or not, but the quote (and its source) is relevant here. Saying that the teaching authority of the Church extends to the interpretation of natural law does not mean that other individuals or faiths have not correctly interpreted it. It simply means that the fullness of true interpretation rests with the Church in the exercise of the Magisterium, The fact that truth can be found without does not lessen the glory of the truth within.

And similarly, saying that the natural law is meaningless without a lawgiver giving it force does not mean that those who do not know the lawgiver are incapable of exercising their reason to discover the universal first principles. As you know, much of the work on natural law was done by pagans, and medieval Islamic scholars wrote quite a bit. Without the teaching authority of the Church, movement beyond those universal first principles is difficult. In fact, the natural law is a special way of participating in the divine life- sharing in God’s plan for creation by ordering our lives to his will by a use of our reason, in submission to the teaching authority of the Church.

:thumbsup:Thanks Smith!
Peace, Carlan

 

[smithm29]

Exactly. Jesus gave new/extra meaning to the Natural Law. Couldn’t agree with you more! However, look at how the enemies of the Church are relentlessly attacking her. The athiest says “there’s no god, all you are spouting is nonsense”. How do you rebutt that? By saying “yes there is a God”? Well, that’s not going to work, is it? You can show them that the Church is built on the Natural Law and explain to them that the Church is an interpreter of the Natural Law and then you must show them what it is and how coherent it is and how natural it is for the human condition. And you must argue against the moral relativists who will tell you there is no god and therefore your Natural Law is no better than my own personal beliefs.

When Saint Paul went to Athens he could appeal to the natural law to convert the pagans- and it worked! Today, we have to first convince people that it’s possible to know anything before we can even broach the subject of natural law. I believe fully that if even a small percentage of Catholics were concerned with issues of epistemology and natural law (and were trained to discuss these things with other) that we would have a chance to overcome the relativism of this age.

EDIT: Blargh. I took a trip to typo city today. Also, I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing on anything!

 

[John21652]

When Saint Paul went to Athens he could appeal to the natural law to convert the pagans- and it worked! Today, we have to first convince people that it’s possible to know anything before we can even broach the subject of natural law. I believe fully that if even a small percentage of Catholics were concerned with issues of epistemology and natural law (and were trained to discuss these things with other) that we would have a chance to overcome the relativism of this age.

Agreed. The Natural Law is hardly even spoken of in this day and age, even by Catholics. The modern ‘isms’ have taken over, like feminism and utilitarianism, marxism and hedonism, although the latter is hidden under the guise of moral relativism. The overt teaching of what Natural Law is should be introduced into Catholic schools and Universities in my opinion. For too long it was takes for granted as just being a part of catholicism that existed underneath everything else without being explained.

EDIT: Blargh. I took a trip to typo city today. Also, I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing on anything!

If you are like me your fingers suffer from dyslexia on the keyboard!

And no, we aren’t disagreeing on anything!!

The only point of contention is the idea that the Natural Law can be known and understood without recourse to God. It remains a coherent philosophy and an objective ethic. In years gone by one could simply say God gave us the natural Law. Today, however, too many openly deny the existence of God and so the grounds for debate are taken away. Saurez and grotius knew this and were able to explain that God can be given a holiday and the Natural Law still withstands scrutiny.

A while back I read an interesting thesis that the history of the fall of empires and nations showed a correlation betwen their decline and the fact that they moved away from the Natural Law and relied more on positivist law. The result was an internal inconsistency and a decline in the shared morality which held those nations and empires together. It seems we are seeing it happen all over again. I haven’t been able to find it since, but the article was an eye opener!