Obey the (Natural) Law
Live honestly, hurt no one, and give to every one his due.
Tax Day approaches, and I’ve been thinking of all the ways government bullies us, demanding we do – and not do – things — or else.
You can get into big trouble for not sending in a bunch of forms to the IRS by April 15 disclosing how much money you made last year. You can get into bigger trouble for not giving the government the cut to which it believes it’s entitled.
You can also get into trouble – admittedly lesser – if you don’t fill out and return that census form sent you without your consent.
You can get into trouble for hiring someone who doesn’t have the government’s permission to be within the politically defined borders of the United States. Even some people who claim to be for limited government like this idea — they favor tough employer sanctions and raids by armed government agents to break up such commercial relations between consenting adults.
You can get into trouble if you ingest a disapproved intoxicant or narcotic. Heck, you can get in trouble for ingesting some approved ones without permission.
You can get into trouble if you refuse to sell your land to the government at any price when politicians decide they want it for a public or private use.
You can get into trouble for putting a shop in an area zoned exclusively residential or vice versa.
You can get into trouble for doing some jobs without a government license, even if your customers are perfectly happy.
And, oh yes, soon you’ll get into trouble for not buying a health-insurance policy.
You can get into trouble for doing a long list of other things that harm no one whatsoever. The things I’m thinking of are not objectively wrong. They’re just mandates and prohibitions decreed by a legislature and signed by an executive.
“It’s the law.”
Is it?
There’s a legal tradition dating back to antiquity which says that “law” means the natural law and that any legislative product that conflicts with the natural law is no law at all.
As Auburn University philosopher Roderick Long points out, the principle lex injusta non est lex — an unjust law is not a law — “was once, and indeed for over two millennia, the dominant position in western philosophy of law…. This doctrine was upheld by Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon, by the Stoics and by Cicero, by Augustine and Aquinas, and by Blackstone as well. The traditional idea was that law must be distinguished from mere force by its authority, and that nothing unjust could have genuine authority” (“Inside and Outside Spooner’s Jurisprudence”; link will download an unpublished paper in Word format).
As Long points out, the great American political philosopher Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) applied this principle in his characteristically consistent and rigorous manner. It’s worth seeing what Spooner had to say. In 1882 Spooner defined natural law as “the science of justice”:
the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
In his 1886 “A Letter to Grover Cleveland,” Spooner elaborated on what natural law is:
Let me then remind you that justice is an immutable, natural principle; and not anything that can be made, unmade, or altered by any human power.
It is also a subject of science, and is to be learned, like mathematics, or any other science. It does not derive its authority from the commands, will, pleasure, or discretion of any possible combination of men, whether calling themselves a government, or by any other name.
It is also, at all times, and in all places, the supreme law. And being everywhere and always the supreme law, it is necessarily everywhere and always the only law.
This is hard-hitting stuff, absolutely bracing. But where does it leave the Congress, state legislature, and city council?
Lawmakers, as they call themselves, can add nothing to it, nor take anything from it. Therefore all their laws, as they call them, — that is, all the laws of their own making, — have no color of authority or obligation. It is a falsehood to call them laws; for there is nothing in them that either creates men’s duties or rights, or enlightens them as to their duties or rights. There is consequently nothing binding or obligatory about them. And nobody is bound to take the least notice of them, unless it be to trample them under foot, as usurpations.
But if perchance Congress should pass a law that coincides with the natural law?
If they command men to do justice, they add nothing to men’s obligation to do it, or to any man’s right to enforce it. They are therefore mere idle wind, such as would be commands to consider the day as day, and the night as night.
Legislation consistent with justice, however, is the exception not the rule, as we know. The real laws commanding us to do natural justice and abstain from injustice are older than the hills, fully in force before the first Congress or legislature convened. So we must ask, what is the status of “laws” that contravene the natural law? Spooner answers:
If they command or license any man to do injustice, they are criminal on their face. If they command any man to do anything which justice does not require him to do, they are simple, naked usurpations and tyrannies. If they forbid any man to do anything, which justice could permit him to do, they are criminal invasions of his natural and rightful liberty. In whatever light, therefore, they are viewed, they are utterly destitute of everything like authority or obligation. They are all necessarily either the impudent, fraudulent, and criminal usurpations of tyrants, robbers, and murderers, or the senseless work of ignorant or thoughtless men, who do not know, or certainly do not realize, what they are doing….
It is intrinsically just as false, absurd, ludicrous, and ridiculous to say that lawmakers, so-called, can invent and make any laws, of their own, authoritatively fixing, or declaring, the rights of individuals, or that shall be in any manner authoritative or obligatory upon individuals, or that individuals may rightfully be compelled to obey, as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them, instead of conforming them to the mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences of nature.
Of course, prudence may counsel compliance with the arbitrary decrees of legislators. Within limits, so be it. But, please, in the name of exactness and truth, do not think of it as obeying the law.
Comment by Whitey on 9 April 2010:
Fantastic article! Howard Roark lives!
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 9 April 2010:
I am wondering about the ‘natural law’. What path are we to be tracing back to find the origin of ‘natural law’, the one that comes from ‘the primordial ooze’ or the one that begins with the Creator of the heavens and the earth? If the latter, there is a succinct commentary on the role of government and the role of the governed, written by Saul of Tarsus, later to become Paul, the apostle, in a letter to the Roman church about 2000 years ago. It’s well worth the reading as a reminder of our responsibility to God first, if we are believers. If not a believer, then we are left with ‘the primordial ooze’ concept.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 9 April 2010:
Spooner, a deist, said that discovery of the natural law was open to reason and that children tacitly understand it from an early age. I don’t believe he speculated about where it “came from.” His point is that if human beings want to live in peace, they had no choice but to do justice and avoid injustice. This is an implicit acknowledgment that the natural law is derived from human nature.
Comment by Bill Reed on 9 April 2010:
“… as it would be to say that they can invent and make such mathematics, chemistry, physiology, or other sciences, as they see fit, and rightfully compel individuals to conform all their actions to them…”
Global warming, anyone? Not only can they make law, they can change climates and save planets, too. What else can these super-humans do? Leap tall buildings in a single bound?
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 9 April 2010:
I guess, Sheldon, that I am not knowledgeable about deism, so I looked it up at Wikipedia. I am coming from a Christian viewpoint and take my cues from those Scriptural writers and prophets that would not be considered deists. So it appears that if one is a deist, the natural law is whatever you want it to be or think it should be, according to human cultural standards – kind-of-a nebulous range of concepts. A deist is then, himself, the sole judge of what kind of a god it is that could have created all things, a mighty task for a mere man. who claims to be one of those things. I choose rather, to believe in the word of the prophets, the word of the one who claimed to be the Son of God, and the One who has convincingly shown himself to me. For me, any natural law then will be that which He has revealed through His written word, and His word through the prophets. Do you take a stand on this?
Comment by Pat on 9 April 2010:
In response to Norman DeLaHunt:
This not meant to be a theological debate, merely an observation.
Romans 13 makes it clear that governing authorities must recognize the difference between good and evil. Such a requirement has completely escaped the notice of our “governing authorities,” who consistently violate their sworn oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. And indeed, they actually call evil good and good evil, while making “laws” that violate Natural Law.
I’m afraid that our U. S. Government has long ago stepped out of the
model of being a legitimate government–according to Locke, Spooner, et al.
Comment by Pat on 9 April 2010:
P.S. to Norman DeLaHunt:
If you haven’t heard of “The Truth Project” put out under the auspices of Focus On The Family, I suggest you track it down–especially segment number 10, “The American Experiment.”
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 9 April 2010:
“So it appears that if one is a deist, the natural law is whatever you want it to be or think it should be, according to human cultural standards – kind-of-a nebulous range of concepts. A deist is then, himself, the sole judge of what kind of a god it is that could have created all things, a mighty task for a mere man.”
Spooner would clearly reject your statement. It’s clear from what I quoted; follow the links and read more. Would a deist hold that the laws of physics are whatever you wait them to be? Obviously not. There are other ways to avoid relativism than traditional religion. It’s a bad argument to tie something to relativism — without argument or support — and think you have grounds to dismiss it.
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 9 April 2010:
In response to Sheldon Richman:
Please excuse my ten minute grasp of deism. Of course I don’t dismiss the natural physical laws which may be observed and which have been meticulously established over the centuries. Even though some things which are called laws are merely unproven theories. My brief take on deism was in reference to the concept of justice vs. injustice or other non-measureable things. Without acceptance of revelations from God to give us standards of measure for concepts like these, we must revert to speculation without roots, in short – each man’s opinion. That’s what I meant by ‘nebulous’.
I am personally appalled at what has been done our country, and where it is going, but for the most part, the horses were out of the barn before we could close the door. We have free speech (at present), we have redress, we have the ballot box, and I hope we have courage and determination to call the wrongs into question, but it’s apparent that we need to pick our battles carefully.
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 9 April 2010:
In response to Pat:
Thanks for the tip. ‘Focus’ has put out some valuable things. Right at this time, our government has indeed stepped outside of it’s charge of serving the people within the bounds of the Constitution, but it’s the only government we have. So we have the option of working within it, rebelling against it at our peril, or leaving the country. I believe that God has his hand on every situation, and has given every authority, good or not-so-good, for our benefit. However we walk, we need to be careful to keep our consciences clear before the Judge.
Comment by John Thomas on 9 April 2010:
If you manage to track down the “Focus On The Family”, be sure that you ignore every word it emits.
They’re one of the largest rights grabbing organizations on the planet.
The article is interesting and has nothing to do with the religious reich in this country.
Comment by Sheldon Richman on 10 April 2010:
I am not a deist, and I did not intend this to be a theological discussion. Spooner’s (and my) position is that the natural law is discoverable by reason and the criterion is what makes a peaceful, human, and social existence possible. For details follow the links provided and read Spooner’s work for yourself.
Comment by Sal on 10 April 2010:
Natural law and the foundation of biblical law, The Golden Rule, are quite similar. Oftentimes those in the christian sector will get ruffled feathers should any moral/ethical code of conduct not loudly proclaim to be rooted in biblical principles. Much ruination has been done to society via the electoral process and what are claimed to be conservative values. Forcing one’s morality upon others is inherently UNchristian. Jesus himself told his disciples that should a city reject them, simply shake their dust off of your feet and move on. There never was a biblical command to elect politicians who would write myriad laws dictating behavior as a means of making society ‘moral.’
Comment by Gary Chartier on 10 April 2010:
Sal, I’d say the connection is even closer than that. For most of Christian history, at any rate, the general view was that moral requirements were, precisely, requirements rooted in human nature. Support for “natural law” was, in this period, the standard Christian view. At the end of the Middle Ages, people like William of Ockham aggressively defended the view that, in fact, moral requirements were arbitrary posits of the divine will; this view was, unfortunately, widely adopted by the Protestant Reformers—though clearly not by all influential Protestants (cp. Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius). As Michael Gillespie has plausibly argued, modern nihilism is rooted in this way of looking at things: the self-legislating modern is Ockham’s god writ small. I think even quite conservative Christians have good reason to reject the Ockhamist view and embrace natural law.
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 10 April 2010:
Those that deny the existence of God endeavor to keep the mention of God out of any discussion. Those that believe in the existence of God (deists, Christians of many persuasions, and others) usually acknowledge that God has a place in the functioning of the Creation, and find it difficult to discuss a subject like Natural Law without tracing it back to God. For if it is natural, then it is part of His Creation, an outflow of shared understanding with Him.
As we would like to impart the principles of Natural Law to our lives, and by extension to the governments that we establish or that have been established before our time, we must consider that not all wish to follow reason (as reason is a gift from God). Therefore, God has given us governments and laws to thwart the evil of unreasoning men. Some things that we might call ‘moral issues’ need to be part of such laws for our protection and the protection of the innocents among us. It’s around these ‘moral issues’ that most debate seems to occur (ie. whose morals do we include). If agreement comes down to the lowest common denominator, then we would have no law concerning ‘moral issues’, a prescription for anarchy. Reasonable men, in my opinion, should look to God for inspiration in order to design these laws, since he has given us the ability to reason, unless, of course, we think that reason came to us by chance–quite a stretch, don’t you think?
Comment by Daniel Ferris on 10 April 2010:
Spooner is wrong. Human law and physical law are different in kind. Try to violate the law of gravity. There’s no court or jury involved in prosecuting the violation, only the court of nature itself, hence the term natural law. The violator goes splat on the pavement. Case closed. In fact, nowhere in the universe can you violate its laws. By definition whatever happens in the physical world is within those laws.
But you can steal and kill without fear of penalty if you’re wearing an ATF badge. There is no “natural” force that will cause the ATF badge wearer to go splat. In fact, human laws guarantee his ability to steal and kill with relative impunity (certainly relative to you and me!). You can tell me that’s wrong, but you can’t tell me there’s a natural law against it, because the violator will likely go his whole life without being prosecuted for his violation. Nature would never allow that (except that human beings are a part of nature, and we allow it all the time).
Human laws are made by and for humans. They’re agreements, contracts if you will. They’re not physical laws. Human law is not science, at least not the same way physics is science.
I’m no less outraged than anyone else at government’s daily violations of my right to have my person and property free from infringement. But physics guarantees a splat when you jump off a building and try to flap your arms and fly. There’s no guaranteed splat when you commit theft, murder or fraud.
Our laws aren’t natural laws. At their best, they’re prohibitions to which we all agree, i.e., those on the infringement of another’s person or property. At their worst….well, take a look around.
I don’t like it less than most people do, but I don’t pretend there’s some natural principle that’s being violated like the law of gravity. It does our cause no good to mischaracterize it and misrepresent its origins.
Comment by Phil on 10 April 2010:
Natural law is not Man made, only observed the same with gravity. I defy gravity every day when i take a step, however there is a consequence as my foot comes back to the ground. Defying the natural law of justice, “Do NO Harm” also has consequences however the splat of matter is not on the pavement but on the universe. Human thought and emotion effect matter and how it reacts with the universe. I could give you examples but you will not know until you observe for yourself.
As far as those that believe words written in books especially that old book, known as the Bible, I wonder why you believe some Man that has come before you was more perfect then you, and could write words to control you. Is your creator inferrer to his or do you just not know what a creator is. The universe is the written word of the initial thought, learn to read it and you will know truth. Peace
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 10 April 2010:
A brief word to Phil
“The universe is the written word of the initial thought, learn to read it and you will know truth.”
Perhaps you understand what you meant by this. But I don’t understand what you said.
When you read “that old book, known as the Bible”, you may begin to understand where truth comes from – or you may not. Some men may prefer to believe in a god formed in their own minds that is limited to the imaginations and longings within them, But I would rather serve a God who has demonstrated himself to me in a thousand ways, has spoken to men from the beginning of time – from Creation, and who gives me true life and a reason for being.
Comment by Phil on 10 April 2010:
Reply to Norman,
Let us start with the notion of a creation. To be a creation there must be a creator with a direct intention to bring a thought into what is known as physical manifestation. We can observe this in ourselves without any instructions from others, this is the key to knowing anything. Man seeks to create as he is the physical manifestation of the creator, the created in his image ideal.
Mans mind is the realm of creation as thought is the beginning to all intentional creation. Intentional is a key word here as mans emotions and feelings behind the thought have a significant impact on what is to be created. A bomb is the thought of destruction while a garden is the thought of life. For example the computer used to type this message was first a thought then it was a design then it became matter in its form.
Universal physical matter is the projection of the the original thought.
You Norman are a creator, one with the abilities of that which created you. However no one but you can take control of your creations.
Peace and love will guide all to eternal joy.
Comment by steven on 10 April 2010:
Sheldon, I just don’t see how the natural law is discoverable by reason (but maybe I’m just not very smart). I’ve never been able to figure that out. I believe that following the natural law is the best and most proper way for humans to live, but that is only a reflection of my subjective value system, which comes from deep inside me. There is no way, at least at the present time, that I could tell anyone why I believe that way.
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 10 April 2010:
A reply to Phil,
What you have said about the essence of creation, that is, human creation beginning with a thought and ending with substance seems straightforward and logical as far as it goes. But you begin with “the notion of a creation”. And I begin with the Creator who created all things and gave us minds to speculate on these things.
But this Creator, who came before all things, and created us in His image is the One who (not ‘which’) gave us the ability to create things also, because we are created in His image. He gave us thought patterns, emotions, etc. similar to His, because He did create us in His image and wants to communicate with us. He hears our voices and our thoughts, though we seldom hear Him. But He also gave us witness in His Creation, of His power, wisdom, and greatness which is far beyond our ability to comprehend fully, to show us His majesty, and to show us how much He loves us in our relative weakness. In His love, He also gave us Jesus, in whom we can have true peace, and in Him never die.
Comment by Norman DeLaHunt on 10 April 2010:
To Sheldon, with respect, as the author of this article:
I apologize to you for veering off the path that you laid out in your well-thought out article. I have heard of Natural Law, and I see that much of such thought is derived from observation of the systems that God has put in place, especially the Law of Gravity, which holds all things together in the physical realm. There are other laws such as the laws of Thermodynamics, which have added to our understanding of our universe’s workings. But when we venture into areas of human attitudes, mores, etc., what we may think of as Natural Laws may be, in my opinion, things that God has put into us from the beginning. Consider conscience, consider love and kindness, consider reasoning ability that goes way beyond mere animal instincts. These things don’t logically happen by chance over the millenia, but must have come from God. I will paraphrase one of His prophets’ sayings: ‘How can the pot talk back to the Potter?’
Comment by James Madison Fan on 12 April 2010:
Darwin would offer that “survival of the fittest” is a natural law but we chose not follow that particular law or the imperfect would be put to death at birth the way they were in ancient Sparta. We can only try to imagine a society where an infant is examined from head to toe and discarded if it is found lacking but this was part of their society for generations. In Japan entire towns were massacred at the whim of their noble lord. Ritual suicide is an accepted part of many cultures. Even in 2010 it is still a part of some cultures in Southeast Asia for the father to “teach” his daughter about sex by lying with her. Female circumcision is part of many African cultures as are coming-of-age rituals that would make Americans cringe.
We pretend that certain laws are “as old as the hills” but that is not the case. The Bible outlines dozens of “crimes” that are punishable by death including being homosexual and unfaithful neither of these are of much concern in our culture unless you’re part of the far right. Slavery has been a part of most cultures dating back to antiquity. The Bible itself outlines proper rules for keeping slaves.
Law is a function of culture – not nature. You can offer that “zebra don’t eat lions” as a natural law and I’ll accept that but the concept that man’s freedom is a “natural law” is entirely absurd. We have freedom because men fought and died and continue to fight and die for an ideal. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. – T. Jefferson”
In our culture we have Republic / Democratic form of government and law is formed by the voice of the People. “Vox Populi, Vox Dei.”
If you do not like the laws as they stand all you need to do to change them is convince enough people that they should be different and Congress will act. If you don’t like the Constitution there are rules as to how it can be changed as well. It is disingenuous to pretend like there is no remedy for the perceived tyranny. Activism is the core to change. If you’re too lazy to organize people then blame the person in the mirror.
Here’s a perfect example of the failure of Mr. Richman’s Objectivist dogma:
“You can get into trouble for hiring someone who doesn’t have the government’s permission to be within the politically defined borders of the United States. Even some people who claim to be for limited government like this idea — they favor tough employer sanctions and raids by armed government agents to break up such commercial relations between consenting adults.”
I have a commercial relationship between consenting adults called “The United States of America.” This is a shared property in which all citizens hold as a shared investment. The right of the government to control our boarders is an extension of the right of individual homeowners to control their own property. If Mr. Richman and I own a home together and I want to rent out a bedroom to an interested tenant I can’t do it without his permission. This is the same as setting up rules for immigrants. If someone enters our property without permission it is “Breaking and Entering” and this is a crime. Offering that we should give people amnesty that have entered illegally because they have set up residence here is like offering that the police should not remove someone from your home because they raided the fridge and are drinking beer and eating leftover pizza. I have the right to control who enters my property. We have a right to control who enters our country. No one has the “natural right” to migrate into my country any more than I have the right to migrate into your kitchen.
Comment by Midas Mulligan on 12 April 2010:
As an “obeyer” of natural law I do my best to avoid and segrate from those who obey political, (man’s) law.
When they look at me and say of course Obama had to violate his promise to America and escalate the war and mandate health coverage I realize they are suicidally insane, in respect to both natural and American law.
When politicians both red and blue get away with serving the party instead of actual human beings and voters, it has become necessary for people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.
Pingback by Militant Libertarian » Obey the (Natural) Law on 12 April 2010:
[...] from TheFreemanOnline [...]
Pingback by Obey the (Natural) Law | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty | Conservablogger on 12 April 2010:
[...] Obey the (Natural) Law | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty 2010 April 12 by Conservablogger There’s a legal tradition dating back to antiquity which says that “law” means the natural law and that any legislative product that conflicts with the natural law is no law at all. via thefreemanonline.org [...]
Pingback by Obey the (Natural) Law « Defund & Disobey on 13 April 2010:
[...] Courtesy, Foundation for Economic Education [...]
Pingback by reboot the republic » Obey the (Natural) Law on 22 April 2010:
[...] From FEE [...]
Pingback by We Have A Lot Fewer Lawbreakers Than We Think - Politics and Other Controversies -Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - City-Data Forum on 25 April 2010:
[...] We Have A Lot Fewer Lawbreakers Than We Think This is perhaps the moist poignant article I've found on line yet: Obey the (Natural) Law | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty [...]
Comment by Consent Withdrawn on 26 April 2010:
Norman DeLaHunt quote: “My brief take on deism was in reference to the concept of justice vs. injustice or other non-measureable things. Without acceptance of revelations from God to give us standards of measure for concepts like these, we must revert to speculation without roots, in short – each man’s opinion. That’s what I meant by ‘nebulous’.”
Give me the natural law based on reason and peaceful co-existence with my fellow human beings over moral decrees given by God because the natural law is more consistent. The natural law for example would always forbid murder except in self defense. But God seems fickle when it comes to murder. He commands thou shalt not murder in Exodus 20:13. But then in Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT, he commands his men to, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” And the above is just one example of God commanding his followers to commit murder.
I am also reluctant to ground my understanding of morality in the state, Saul/Paul’s admonition not withstanding, for the very same reason. The state outlaws murder, but then orders its citizens to go off and murder people of other nations.
No, it would seem that the natural law is the only consistent and well grounded system of morality we have
Comment by James Madison Fan on 26 April 2010:
The only “natural law” is survival of the fittest. Mother Nature does not care about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Man is the antithesis of natural law. We protect the weak rather than preying on them and loath people that would violate this ethic which is why we find child molesters so disgusting. They prey on the weakest and most trusting among us. However as repellant as we find these offenders there are still communities in Asia and the Pacific Islands where the father is expected to “teach” his daughter about sex before she marries by lying with her. In the Middle-East and Africa the practice female circumcision as well as other ritualistic coming of age ceremonies performed on children that would get you sent to prison for a very long time if performed in the US.
The only rules that matter are the rules that society forges. The Bible is a reflection of cultural beliefs that in some cases date back more than 3,000 years before Christ. The actual commandment is “Thou shall not murder” not “Thou shall not kill.” Murder is – unjustified – homicide. In the minds of the cabal that authored the Tanakh / Torah it was socially acceptable to kill someone that was unfaithful, gay, blasphemed, etc. There are dozens of sins in the Bible that require ritual purification that range from animal sacrifice to killing the “sinner.” This seems strange to us because we live in a different culture where God is nowhere near as real to us, marriage is a legal document you file with the County Clerk, and divorce is a ritual where you divide assets, arrange visitation, and negotiate child support and alimony.
My point being that there is no such thing as a “natural laws” that universally cross cultural barriers.
Comment by Sean Ambroise on 2 July 2010:
Madison fan.
You are delving into a big ethical, philosophical controversy here that you probably don’t know too much about. Here are three things I notice.
You believe ethics are relative. They are just social mores. I’ll agree that there are social mores, and most people view those things as “morals”, but you are assuming that there is nothing more. Simply proving that social mores form the basis for most ideas about conventional morality does not prove anything else.
You don’t believe in the objective morality of the Bible. Well, that is all fine and well, but ethicists have argued for moraltiy outside of Biblical parameters.
You probably adhere to David Hume’s “is-ought” fork. He said that you cannot derive notions of morality from notions of fact. But, what exactly is a fact? How can we say that “logic” is real, or “math” is real, but “morality” is not? Welcome to epistemology. Generally, the naturalistic argument for morality in regard to natural law goes like this: by nature, humans are autonomous. Coercion, while physically possible, is unnatural because it is in contrast with natural autonomy.
I’m simplifying a WHOLE lot here, but it is theorized that morality must exist in harmony with nature, because anything otherwise would generate contradictions, which as we can inductively conclude are not valid. Metaphysical truths such as logic or morality simply do not contradict physical and empirically verifiable ones.
Thus, what is inherently natural (with regard to humans and other sentient, self-aware lifeforms) is inherently moral. But, this morality generally takes what is called a “negative” form, such that what is unnatural is considered immoral.
Because humans are utility seeking creatures at their core, the same type of argument is commonly used to justify utilitarian type theories.
Even disregarding that PARTICULAR argument, you cannot state as a matter of fact that metaphysical and objective morality does not exist. That is making an assertion, one that is not automatically justified by your mere assertion thereof.
Comment by Sean Ambroise on 2 July 2010:
To Norman DeLaHunt,
“Without acceptance of revelations from God to give us standards of measure for concepts like these, we must revert to speculation without roots, in short – each man’s opinion. That’s what I meant by ‘nebulous’.”
Here is how a Christian ought to understand natural law, individualism, etc. God created mathematics, did he not? He created principles, from which we can derive astounding truths. Revealed truth is not diminished at all by the presence of other truth.
In the same manner, God created other types of truth, involving reason and rationalism, so that things like a natural law could be derived. I wouldn’t call it a science (because it is not empirical) but it is a systematic approach to societal justice and betterment. This truth does not diminish Divinely revealed morality at all, but it was created by God because it is more clear cut and precise as to what governments and courts ought and ought not do.
Comment by Billy Akers on 10 February 2011:
We observe a physical creation that follows a precise and perfect set of laws. We as a part of this creation find ourselves also subject to these physical laws. The existence of these laws and of the creation prove the existence of an intelligence great enough to devise and implement such laws and enforce them on the created material. This intelligent being can be called Creator.
The Creator either does or doesn’t react with the created. Their is a book that claims in it’s text to be the inspired communication from the Creator to mankind. This book also has proof it contains instruction from the Creator. In it’s pages it reveals the existence of a spiritual realm that lives by a law of spirit.
Men must also live by the spiritual law as there is a spirit in man. This law is explained as love the Creator and love your neighbor.
Men have freedom to disobey physical laws and spiritual laws but doing either is unwise and will bring penalty. Human government is unnecessary if men will obey the laws of the Creator. Because they won’t obey, men devise governments that are often at odds with the laws of the Creator. Man’s governments can not bring happiness or peace because violating the spiritual laws as enforced by the Creator bring hatred and war and death to it’s violators. It makes no difference if you know of or believe in the Creator or the spiritual law only if you follow the instructions contained in the book which was inspired by the Creator of the law and man.