Natural law is term with varient meanings. Natural law tradition has been associated with a theory of ethics as well as a theory of law. In order to analyse natural law tradition it is imperative to maintain the distinction between the ethical and legal theory.
Natural law as an ethical theory revolves around the question of how a man 'ought' to live. It aims to seek answer to this question not by observing the 'laws of nature' which comes under the realm of science but rather by looking for some kind of objectivity in moral proposition. Natural law holds that moral proposition are not meaningless and one can objectively decide whether a moral proposition is true or not. The idea goes something like this, there is a core of our morality which does not depend upon our culture,convention or mere opinion but is common to all becuase of our 'shared nature'. Therefore, natural law ethics holds that a moral proposition is true if it conforms with our shared nature.
Natural law as legal theory is closely associated with the ethical one but has far reaching consequences. As the society evolved, the question of how a man ought to live met another question. The issue was now how a man ought to govern? There was now a central authority and a ruler who governed society by a socialogical tool called 'law'. The demand to bring the ruler under law was insitent and natural law legal theory provided the answer. It holds that 'law' derives its authority from 'morality'. In other words, there is a necessary connection between moral norms and legal norms. Therefore, law is nothing but applied morality. The basic tenents of the legal theory are as follows.
1) Law is universal and immutable. It does not depend upon mere custom,habit or opinion.
2) This universal law is discoverable by the faculty of human reasoning.
3) There is a necessare connection between law and morality.
4) Any positive law (man made law) is not binding upon the conscience if it is in a conflict with the natural law.
No one put it better than the Roman Philosopher Cicero. He wrote, "And there will be no different law at Rome and Athens, or different laws now or in future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times".
Classical Natural Law:
The roots of natural law tradition can be traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman Philosophies. The thought that began with Socrates reached its culmination in the writings of Aristotle and he formulated a systimatic account of Natural law tradition.
For Aritotle 'essence precedes existence', so it was essential to understand man's telos (purpose or goal) in order to understand his true nature. The teleolgical approach demands that the law should be made in the light of the human telos or purpose. Aristole believed that man was social, political and sought knowledge. A good life will be one where these aspects of human nature can flourish and prosper.
The Stoics believed in the primacy of human reason and cosmic determinism. Through their writings, they argued that by exercising human reason man can understand the real immutable law that transcends particular culture or religion. Taking natural law to its extremes, some of the thinkers believed that 'an unjust law is not law'. It is important to not here that they don't argue that an unjust law is 'bad law' but rather that it does not qualify as law at all becuase it loses its authority by ignoring the precepts of morality and justice.
God was not a central figure in the natural law theories of Aristotle, Plato or Stoics. However, in medival times religion was an essential feature of society and it took the genius of Saint Thomas Aquinas to come up with the synthesis of religion and natural law tradition. Building upon the works of Aristotle (whom he always reffered to as The Philosopher), Aquinas argued that the telos of man demands the establishment of a christian society and knowledge of God. In other words, he presented a christianised account of the Aristotlian conception of natural law. In doing so, he formulated a comprehensive natural theory of his own. Aquinas divided law into four categories i.e. Eternal law, Natural law, Divine law and Positive law. A brief eleboration of these terms is required to understand the structure of Aquinas' theory.
Eternal law refers to those laws according to which the whole universe is governed e.g laws of physics. In other words the eternal order imposed by the creator.
Natural law means that humans have a share in the divine wisdom. They posses rationality and free will and by exercising these faculties they develop a special relationship with the creator. In essence, the natural law refers to the participation of man in the divine rational order of things.
Divine law is essential for the salvation of man in the hereafter and primarily refers to the revealed scriptures and other Holy Texts.
Positive law or Human Law refers to those particular norms that man deduces from the general precepts of natural law. For instance, every religion prohibits bodily harm and theft. However, the scope of exact punishment is left at the discretion of state or human control. So, man by exercising his reason can come up with an appropriate punishment based on the precepts of natural law and justice. However, a Human law, for Aquinas is law as long as it deduces its authority from the natural law and promotes the 'common good'. Any positive legal norm that neither derives its authority from natural law nor promotes 'common good' is not law and therefore not binding upon conscience.
Natural law to Natural Rights:
Natural law played a pivotal role in the story and development of human rights. Natural law viewed certain rights to exist as a result of higher law. These inalienable rights were called natural rights by most of the liberal political writers.
John Locke considered these rightes to be existing on the basis of Social Contract. Thomes Hobbes had argued before Locke that these rightes were surrendered undered the social contract and the only right that survived it was the right of self-perservation. For Hobbes the gruesome state of nature demanded a strong central authority that can put order on chaos. However, Locke argued that these rights cannot be surrendered within the social contract and if a ruler does not grant these rights the citizens have a right to repudiate such a contract.
(continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment