What Is Natural Law? (Tutorial)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Parker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_Parker

Guest
It is anticipated that our Holy Father will issue an encyclical later this year about Natural Law (NL), because it is fundamental to Catholic moral theology and social justice teachings. Until that point, please permit me to offer some preliminary material.

Common Objections:
There is some question as to what the Natural Law is and what it is not. Some people think that NL is simply the Bible-in-disguise. This is not so. Others think that NL is “whatever comes naturally” or “whatever occurs in nature”. This also is not so. NL is also not a cook-book for what is right and wrong, permitting one to plug-in a given problem and pop-out an answer - much difficult reasoning *can *be required. These are common difficulties about Natural Law which need not be problems - they are misunderstandings. If NL is to be critiqued, it should be critiqued on the terms it professes.

What does NL actually teach?
NL is archtypically articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas, and in order to understand it fully you have to have some background with Thomistic thought. (Those interested in further introductory material on St. Thomas can obtain Glenn’s A Tour of the Summa or Kreeft’s Summa of the Summa.) For the sake of brevity, I will omit most all of it - I will simply state that humans have a nature which is unique to humans. NL is exclusively concerned with how humans act – it does not care what sheep or cows or plants do, only humans. Any attempt to justify human actions by the “natural acts” of other animals is inherently flawed, according to Natural Law theory. Apples and oranges.

What do humans do by their nature?
By our nature, humans have free will and an intellect which reasons. (St. Thomas is much more complex, but I’ll try to keep it simple.) By our nature, we all seek " the good", and use our intellect and our will to get there. “The good” is an end, the will and the intellect are the means. We are free with regard to the means, but we are not free with regards to the ultimate ends (i.e., how we’re designed) - this is what is meant by “free will”. Just like you can’t run a car on molasses, you can’t run a human on things we’re not designed for.

**What is “the good”? **
“The good” is that which is in accordance with our nature. The main things which are in accordance with our nature are as follows:

  1. *]Inclination to seek “the good” and avoid evil (defined as that which is “not good”)

    *]Inclination to preserve self (good to eat, for example)
    *]Inclination to preserve the species (i.e., propagate the species – sex)

    *]Inclination to live in community
    *]Inclination to know and to choose (to use our intellect and our will)
    Not surprisingly, most reasoned folks (which *excludes *a great number of Ph.Ds) would agree that these things are in accordance with our nature as rational human beings. Natural Law (broadly) says that things which are contrary to these inclinations are bad. There are, of course, instances where these would be in tension and a hierarchy is required, but that is not important right now.

    What is important is that these fundamental principles are at the root of the law. With these we can see that stealing would be wrong, as it’s contrary to #4. Adultery is wrong for the same reason. Bulimia is wrong because it’s contrary to #2. Oppression/tyranny is wrong because it’s contrary to #5. (Summa Q95, Art4)

    A distinction should be drawn between objective wrongs and subjective wrongs, as a person may intend to do the right thing but actually commit an objective wrong or intend the wrong thing but actually do an objective good – both must be right for a given act to be moral, according to St. Thomas.
 
What overlap does this have with the Human Law?
Human law (HL) cannot legitimately violate NL. If it does, it is an unjust law and does not need to be obeyed. (Q95, Art2.) This is why Rosa Parks was right, despite the law telling her the opposite. HL which violates NL is not law, it is a perversion of law and does not bind.

However…HL should not try to mandate every virtue and prohibit every vice. (Q96, Art2-3) If it tried to, (1) we would despise the law and (2) we would not freely choose to be virtuous. Only the most egregious vices should be prohibited, but any virtue may be prescribed.

So what should HL legislate?
HL should not legislate for the individual good, but rather for the " common good". What is the “common good”? The Common Good is the set of conditions in which people can achieve the fulfillment of their individual good in the best way. (Q96, Art1.) Largely, this will consist of legislating the things which foster a peaceful society (no murder, stealing, etc.), though it is not limited to this alone. Social programs, Good Samaritan laws, etc. are all within the jurisdiction of HL. Conversely, adultery, prostitution, gambling, etc. are also within the jurisdiction of HL. (Interestingly, St. Thomas didn’t think prostitution should be outlawed - he thought it a necessary evil to control the lust of the wicked.)

What does that have to do with the U.S.?
One need only read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence to see the influence of NL on the framers of the Constitution. It was pervasive. It is the root of American law, and we should not cut ourselves off at the root.

I would assert that the only viable alternative to NL jurisprudence (legal thought/history) is Legal Positivism. The distinction between the two can be simply stated: NL is a product of the reason, Positivism is a product of the will. I will try to do a post on Positivism if there is interest.

I can recommend books and/or papers for further reading if anyone desires.

Peter Parker
 
Thanks for this post and Im probably going to drive you insane now, because I have a lot of problems understanding Natural Law, and I tried to read the Summa, but theology with a dash of philosophy eludes me on sooooo many levels.

1st question

You define evil as what is not good. How do you know what is good? ( Please tell me you do not define it as that which is not evil.)
 
The book:

50 Questions on the Natural Law - by Dr. Charles Rice

offers good explanations of the natural law and how it dovetails into Catholic theology. I highly recommend it.
 
Thank you for this. Too bad that the Declaration of Independence is not law.
 
First, I’ll second Charles Rice’s book. It’s very accessible. It’s not an exhaustive defense by any means (it wasn’t intended to be), but it’s a great introduction/overview. For more advanced work, his colleague John Finnis is exceedingly good. Finnis is much harder to read, however, and gets into philosophical intricacies.

Charles Rice also had a series on EWTN called “The Good Code” where he discusses NL. They don’t yet have it on realaudio. In truth, he reminds me more of a football coach than he does a Thomistic scholar - perhaps that’s why I like him so much.
Polaris said:
You define evil as what is not good. How do you know what is good? ( Please tell me you do not define it as that which is not evil.)
Click to expand...
What is evil?
These definitions get a bit tricky, but the good in NL is typically defined as that which all men seek by their nature. Evil is best defined as either an absence of a particular good or a perversion thereof. It is “missing the mark”, so to speak. Further, distinctions need to be made between physical evils and moral evils.

If a man is born without an arm, that is a physical evil. It is the absence of a good, and is contrary to what we are by our nature (i.e., two armed creatures).

If a man rapes a woman, it is a moral evil (coupled with a physical act). There is no thing such as “evil” in and of itself, but only a perversion of goods – here, the perversion of preservation of the species and the good of the inclination to live in community. Lust is simply wrongly-ordered love; it is not a “thing” in and of itself. It is at once the absence of right-order and the perversion of the good which makes raping evil.

What is Divine Law?
St. Thomas (and the Church) would assert that these things can be known by reason, but because of concupiscence (St. Thomas calls “fomes”) they can only be known with great difficulty and much labor. This is where Divine Law (DL) comes in. DL consists of the truths which God has revealed to us, to include the Old and New Testaments. When I think of Divine Law, I typically think of the Decalogue (10 Commandments). They are all reasonable, but if you asked someone who had never heard of them to independently reason to them it would be difficult (some more difficult than others).

What is the purpose of the Divine Law?
The DL is needed to guide us in the use of our reason. (Q91, Art4.) It acts as signposts to right-thinking. Is it wrong to commit adultery? Should we honor our mothers and fathers? Would it help us reach the fulfillment of our nature if we were consumed with coveting? The DL ensures we don’t mess these up. When thinking about the Decalogue, some people think it’s a list of rules promulgated by an arbitrary master. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What is closer to truth, as Charles Rice puts it, is that these are the manufacturer’s instructions on how humans work. These are instructions on how to become ‘blessed’ (a state of preternatural and lasting happiness). Is one who murders happy? No. One consumed by coveting? No. One who quarrels with his parents? No. What about one who does not worship God? No. If we do not worship God will worship idols, for we are worshipers by our nature. Perhaps it will be money, or sex, or drugs, but we will prize something above all other things. If we disobey the 10 Commandments, we will not only offend God we will not find our fulfillment.

Why is the Declaration of Independence important – after all, it’s not law?
When you read a contract, you look to the words of the contract but also to the subjective understanding of the contracting parties. This understanding becomes especially important when there are ambiguities in the contract, particularly if there’s any demonstrable evidence of the subjective understanding.

It would seem that the best way to interpret the Constitution, which is law, is to look to the understanding of those who contracted the document. Certainly there are new and unforeseen technologies which make the application a bit difficult, but if you understand the principles the framers were working with you can apply them to new situations.
 
Say, I dont trust divine law. Im an athiest. (not really but hey) I believe in reason alone.

Please define what is the perfect nature of man is morally and how you arrived at this ideal w/o brining DL into it.

How do you know what is a difference/preference and what is perversion morally and physically?

This is why I have a problem with Natural Law. It has been used in the belief system from the athiest Ayn Rand to the St pius X crowd all I guess would be a perversion of this Natural Law. So how do you weed out what the truth is from what is actually the context of the one defining Natural Law. I mean I like the Dumb Ox but he was operating from a system of faith we cant do that in the modern secular age to convince people of truth.

I know some of these questions are way to big to answer but I would appreciate any help.

Thanks
 
Polaris said:
Say, I dont trust divine law. Im an athiest. (not really but hey) I believe in reason alone.
Click to expand...
I would assert that Atheism is not a reasonable position.
Please define what is the perfect nature of man is morally and how you arrived at this ideal w/o brining DL into it.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem that you can run into with materialism and reductionist philosophy is that it will ultimately deny free will and see as baseless any valuation of life. If you want to take that approach and deny basic epistemology, there’s not much you can say to refute it. Ironically, there’s little a true skeptic can say in response to any argument because they believe that nothing can be known (including that skepticism is actually true). It’s an interesting dilemma for them because as soon as they assert their philosophy they have undermined it.

Most American atheists are not true skeptics. Your lay-atheist probably believes in free will and the value of human life (though you should probably not ask them to justify this belief, because they ultimately can’t defend it while remaining true atheists). If you review what I’ve written, I don’t believe that I have made DL the root of NL theory (so far); I’ve merely said it was a guide to right-reason. Because NL is rooted in reason, you should (in principle) be able to reason to any of the tenets - though likely with much difficulty and error along the way. This fact should be appealing to the “reasoned atheist”.
How do you know what is a difference/preference and what is perversion morally and physically?
Click to expand...
A perversion is anything which deviates from the nature of man and his seeking of the good. Having blue eyes or brown does not deviate from the nature of man. Having no eyes does. This is because having two eyes is (abstractly) how we’re designed. It’s in our nature.

Being a moral creature is in conformity with the nature of man; acting immorally is not in accordance with our nature and will result in inhumanity. We are made to be free, but true freedom requires rules. It’s a paradox. If you’re having difficulty with this you may ask yourself whether or not a heroine addict is truly free, or if he’s a slave to something else. Or, perhaps, whether a sex fiend is truly free or if he’s at the mercy/command of his passions. Freedom from is only half of the answer; freedom to is the other part. Freedom has both a positive and a negative component. A musician is free to make whatever tune he pleases (Mozart, Brahms, etc.), but it has to be in tune; if it’s not then it’s not music - it’s noise. A free musician used the rules to freely play, and in doing so he is truly free.

But perhaps this is not what you’re asking.
This is why I have a problem with Natural Law. It has been used in the belief system from the athiest Ayn Rand to the St pius X crowd all I guess would be a perversion of this Natural Law. So how do you weed out what the truth is from what is actually the context of the one defining Natural Law. I mean I like the Dumb Ox but he was operating from a system of faith we cant do that in the modern secular age to convince people of truth.
Click to expand...
There are several issues here, including whether or not anything which can be reasoned to is reasonable (i.e., in accordance with NL). The answer is no. You can reason to many false principles, but they remain false. This is the problem with concupiscence; our intellects are dim.

As for whether or not DL is necessary for NL theory, there are differing opinions. If you’re really interested, John Finnis wrote a book called Natural Law and Natural Rights which you might want to get your hands on. He makes his argument for NL without recourse to the divine.
I know some of these questions are way to big to answer but I would appreciate any help.
Click to expand...
They can be answered, but probably not in the space of a post. Like I said, you may want to get your hands on Finnis’ book(s) if you want to leave aside the question of DL.
 
Nothing really to add, but enjoying the thread. It is becoming a good resource that I can bookmark for future reference, thanks. Welcome to the forums, Peter Parker. 👋
 
I also want to thank you for this thread! 👍

I have the book by Dr Charles Rice that you mentioned, ‘50 Questions on the Natural Law - What it is and why we need it’ and I have tried to get through it … and kind of … um, paused a quarter of the way through. I’d like to finish it but it’s tough going for me.

Anyway, great thread, welcome, and yes - I’m interested, count me in 🙂
 
urban-hermit said:
I have the book by Dr Charles Rice that you mentioned, ‘50 Questions on the Natural Law - What it is and why we need it’ and I have tried to get through it … and kind of … um, paused a quarter of the way through. I’d like to finish it but it’s tough going for me.
Click to expand...
Dr. Rice used that book as the basis for his EWTN series “The Good Code”. If you have the chance to see this on EWTN, it makes the book more understandable (IMHO).
 
Thank you to all for the kind words.

Charles Rice’s book is good, provided that you’re looking for an overview and not a comprehensive defense. It covers a variety of topics from a Thomistic perspective, and relies heavily on the reader’s openness to Christianity and Catholicism in particular. For example, Rice spends several questions examining why the Magisterium is the official interpreter/expositor of the Natural Law. Several treatises could be spent on this point, and Rice limits it (by necessity) to a few chapters. It’s a good book, but you should understand its limits. It’s immensely good for an introduction, and I believe that is its purpose.

A few methodological points. I mentioned both Aquinas and Finnis above. The two come to very similar answers, but come at the question from very different ways.

Aquinas starts with the assumption that you have read Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Augustine, Cicero, Justinian, etc. That’s why his work is entitled the Summa. Without reading all of those, it’s difficult to grasp some of his writing. With this understanding, Aquinas begins the Summa by demonstrating that God can be known with certainty through reason alone (Q1). Aquinas then goes on to trace the reason for belief in the teachings of Catholic Church. Amongst these teachings is that God is Reason. (As Pope Benedict said in the Regensburg address, “Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason.”)

Starting with God as Reason, Aquinas then postulates the Eternal Law, which is God’s idea of things. Flowing from the EL and through the Scriptures is Divine Law, which is what God has given us. Using the DL, man can employ his reasoning to discern the Natural Law. In accordance with the NL, man can create Human Law to govern men in right society to help us achieve our ends and to lead us to virtue (possibly the same thing). (These are all derivable from Q91-Q96.) The flow would thus appear to be EL → DL → NL → HL, and it’s hierarchical in a manner of speaking. All HL is a participation in (and thus cannot contradict) NL, NL in DL, and DL in EL. The fundamental principles of NL cannot be subtracted from, but NL can be added to with the development of a society (Q94, Art 5).

By contrast, Finnis (a seemingly faithful Catholic) takes to the question from a different approach. He begins with reason as a fundamental building block, and God thus becomes the conclusion and not the foundation (though you don’t necessarily need to share this when explaining NL). Finnis does this by relying on “self-evident principles”. Some view this as a weakness in his approach, but I’m not so sure. A general example of a self-evident principle (given by Aquinas) is the principle of contradiction: a thing cannot both be and not be with regards to the same aspect at the same time. If something is, then there is something which it is not. A man cannot at once be a mammal and not-a-mammal. This is a self-evident truth, and cannot be proven.

For Finnis, the self evident principles of the NL are:

  1. *]Life. “the first basic value, corresponding to the drive for self-preservation, is the value of life. The term ‘life’…signifies every aspect of vitality…which puts a human being in good shape for self-determination.”
    *]Knowledge: a preference for true over false belief. It corresponds to that basic drive we call curiosity, a drive which leads us to reject any celebration of self-proclaimed ignorance or superstition. It is “knowledge…for its own sake, not merely instrumentally” that Finnis has in mind. It can range from the speculations of a great philosopher or scientist to know of how often Middle-sex have been county cricket champions.
    *]Play: “each one of us can see the point of engaging in performances which have no point beyond the performance itself.”
    *]Aesthetic experience: the appreciation of beauty.
    *]Sociability or friendship: “acting for the sake of one’s friend’s purposes, one’s friend’s well-being.”
    *]Practical reasonableness: “the basic good of being able to bring one’s own intelligence to bear effectively…on the problems of choosing one’s actions and life-style and shaping one’s own character.”
    *]Religion: “questions of the origins of cosmic order and of human freedom and reason.” Expressed thus, this view is a good that even an atheist can value.
    (Citations omitted.)

    How are these self-evident?
    Take knowledge, for example. It cannot be denied as a self-evident principle. One who denies it is “implicitly committed to the proposition that he believes his assertion is worth making, and worth making qua true; he is thus committed to the proposition that he believes the truth is a good worth pursuing or knowing. But the sense of his original assertion was precisely that truth is not a good worth pursuing or knowing.” As MacCormick puts it, “why should…anyone…care to know that knowledge is not worth having unless, after all, at least that knowledge is worth having?”
 
ricmat said:
Dr. Rice used that book as the basis for his EWTN series “The Good Code”. If you have the chance to see this on EWTN, it makes the book more understandable (IMHO).
Click to expand...
Thanks - I don’t get EWTN where I am living, but I will watch ewtn.com and hope that “The Good Code” becomes available on DVD or for audio download. I have learned a lot from EWTN that way.
 
Peter_Parker said:
Originally Posted by Polaris
Click to expand...
I feel this is such an important point. I think amateurs like me can fall into a pit if we think that Natural Law will help us explain morality apart from God - an impression I had for a while. There’s lots of observable evidence to support morality, but basically I think it’s better to say “I believe that I may understand”, not try to point out aspects of observable reality to somebody in order to lead them to belief (this is from a quote I have from St Anselm).

Anyway I think we can be respectful but firm right from the beginning when we start a discussion with somebody, and say that we believe completely in God and that it is totally reasonable to do so. Otherwise, what has happened to me is that the discussion tends to stay framed in such a way that doubt about God is an ongoing given, and since we continue to talk at the atheist’s materialistic level to try to convert him maybe, I can in a way undermine myself or put unnecessary constraints upon myself, even within my own thinking.

Sorry I’m kind of gibbering but do you know what I mean? Starting out with a strong statement, polite but firm, like “I believe in God and I feel that is the only reasonable position, although I accept that you do not agree …” is better. And then from there I can commence with all the NL arguments that support moral tenets, that just so happen to be compatible with belief in God and His moral revelation. 😃
Click to expand...
 
urban-hermit said:
Sorry I’m kind of gibbering but do you know what I mean? Starting out with a strong statement, polite but firm, like “I believe in God and I feel that is the only reasonable position, although I accept that you do not agree …” is better. And then from there I can commence with all the NL arguments that support moral tenets, that just so happen to be compatible with belief in God and His moral revelation. 😃
Click to expand...
I totally understand what you mean. I am interested in Peter Parker’s steps of EL-NL for that reason. Many of the people I am talking with take their atheism as a given. To them their stance is the reasonable one. I too like to be able to show that one does not need to be removed from reason to believe in God. That in fact belief in God is the more reasonable stance since it explains far more. The polite, but firm stance you suggest is a good way to open the door without attempting to plow an atheist down. They are reasonable.
 
Peter_Parker said:
What overlap does this have with the Human Law?
Human law (HL) cannot legitimately violate NL. If it does, it is an unjust law and does not need to be obeyed. (Q95, Art2.) This is why Rosa Parks was right, despite the law telling her the opposite. HL which violates NL is not law, it is a perversion of law and does not bind.

However…HL should not try to mandate every virtue and prohibit every vice. (Q96, Art2-3) If it tried to, (1) we would despise the law and (2) we would not freely choose to be virtuous. Only the most egregious vices should be prohibited, but any virtue may be prescribed.

So what should HL legislate?
HL should not legislate for the individual good, but rather for the " common good". What is the “common good”? The Common Good is the set of conditions in which people can achieve the fulfillment of their individual good in the best way. (Q96, Art1.) Largely, this will consist of legislating the things which foster a peaceful society (no murder, stealing, etc.), though it is not limited to this alone. Social programs, Good Samaritan laws, etc. are all within the jurisdiction of HL. Conversely, adultery, prostitution, gambling, etc. are also within the jurisdiction of HL. (Interestingly, St. Thomas didn’t think prostitution should be outlawed - he thought it a necessary evil to control the lust of the wicked.)

What does that have to do with the U.S.?
One need only read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence to see the influence of NL on the framers of the Constitution. It was pervasive. It is the root of American law, and we should not cut ourselves off at the root.

I would assert that the only viable alternative to NL jurisprudence (legal thought/history) is Legal Positivism. The distinction between the two can be simply stated: NL is a product of the reason, Positivism is a product of the will. I will try to do a post on Positivism if there is interest.

I can recommend books and/or papers for further reading if anyone desires.

Peter Parker
Click to expand...
Thanks for the inservice. By the way, do you wear black rimmed glasses and climb walls for fun…sorry, couldn’t resist.
 
Thank you I think I will check out Finnis Book. Do you have then name of it by any chance.
Thanks
 
Polaris said:
Thank you I think I will check out Finnis Book. Do you have then name of it by any chance.
Thanks
Click to expand...
Natural Law and Natural Rights is worth the price, though he has several books.
Riley259 said:
Thanks for the inservice. By the way, do you wear black rimmed glasses and climb walls for fun…sorry, couldn’t resist.
Click to expand...
Only when I’ve had too much coffee.
LittleDeb said:
I totally understand what you mean. I am interested in Peter Parker’s steps of EL-NL for that reason. Many of the people I am talking with take their atheism as a given. To them their stance is the reasonable one. I too like to be able to show that one does not need to be removed from reason to believe in God. That in fact belief in God is the more reasonable stance since it explains far more. The polite, but firm stance you suggest is a good way to open the door without attempting to plow an atheist down. They are reasonable.
Click to expand...
Would you like for me to go through Aquinas’ five proofs for the existence of God from the Summa? If so, I can and will - that shouldn’t take long. If not, I intend to go from here to how the NL can be implemented more concretely.

By the way, I apologize for delays in responding; I’m very busy and I’m trying to go the writings of the authors themselves, synthesize their arguments and reproduce them. If it seems like I have, have no fear: I will not forget about this thread.
 
Where did you hear these rumors about the NL encyclical? That would be awesome.

He wouldn’t have to say too many new things, just remind people about what NL has taught for centuries and relate to the moral relativism we see today. It would be very appropriate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top