Natural law

I’ve had trouble understanding “natural law”. Some traditional conservatives and religious people talk about it as thought it should be the guiding principle of life. One article defined natural law as “the innate sense of morality that is believed to be written on people’s hearts and can be divined by human reason.” An encyclopedia defined it the “ theory that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and are discovered by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial secessions.” It goes on to say, “Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made law, conditioned by history and subject to continues change.” I am still unsure of it.

I guess there is a connection between natural law and religion because it is mentioned as a basis for morality and common sense. The Ten Commandments is a form of natural law because they do make common sense and are hard to argue with. Perhaps it also has to do with the idea that humankind is an extension of God. The rational behind that, I would think, is that God has instilled in us certain unalienable, 'God' given rights.

There is a connection between natural law and natural rights. John Locke (1632-1704) made the connection. Natural law and natural rights are connected because they both make perfect sense. A natural right Locke said individuals have is the right to own property. This natural right is a corner stone of America’s Declaration of Independents. In the Declaration it is worded as the right to pursue happiness. It was worded that way so as not to sound mercenary and selfish. In the Declaration there also are other natural rights Locke spoke of, the rights to life and liberty. It is also natural and natural law to think, Locke said, that one’s own labor is one’s property, belonging to them and should be paid for if employed by others.

Natural law and positive law are not as opposed to each other as one might think. In theory they are supposed to be. But in practice they aren’t that estranged. The Declaration and The Constitution of the United States together is a perfect example of this. The Declaration spells out the natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the Constitution encompasses the positive law that respect and uphold those natural rights. The framers of the Constitution knew full well that people by nature wouldn’t or couldn’t uphold and practice natural law on mere faith, just because it was declared as self-evident. For it to be respected and endure, natural law has to be supported by positive law of legislation and the courts.

I don’t think it is a coincidence that natural law emerged as an idea when it did, during Locke’s time. At the time the scientific revolution was in full swing and philosophers and scientists were beginning to understand the mechanics and logic of nature. They believed if such logic exists and works for nature why could it not be applied to the organization and workings of humankind. The word natural became synonymous with things that make sense and work. It was reasoned that if natural law and its derivatives was applied to the working of humankind and society they would function better and more logically.

Edmund Burke, the supposed founder of modern conservatism, didn’t believe in natural law. I thought he would have because today’s conservative do. However, conservatism in his day was different. He believed in a class structure and wasn’t for the common man. Natural law and its natural rights meant that under it the masses would be liberated and have input in the running of government. Burke didn’t think the masses were capable of organizing and governing themselves. A ruling class should continue to exit, he thought. Today, however, natural law is a cannon of conservative thinking. In Burke’s day it was viewed as liberal thinking. That reversal emphasizes something I have been thinking about, the topsy-turvy relationship that exists between conservative and liberal thinking, often trading places on issues.

I don’t think natural law is as natural as it is made out to be, especially when it comes to natural rights. I guess they feel natural because they obviously feel instinctive and inherently right. They are, after all, hard to argue with, like it is hard to argue with Mother Nature. However, it took some deliberation and education to open our eyes to them, to discover they were natural and inherent to all of us. It took someone like Locke to point out that they are and should appear as self-evident. He pushed the idea of natural rights as a way of making government realize that they are responsible to us, their constituents, not the other way around. When Locke first introduced them to us they didn’t appear to be so natural. However, now that we have a greater awareness and understanding of them they come to us as ‘second nature’, like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more natural?

Finally, I think natural law implies a responsibility. If we are to expect natural rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness we must show responsibility and know they come with strings attached. They shouldn't be abused. And if we are to have them for ourselves we must acknowledge them for others. Also, natural rights require a vigilance because there is always someone around who wants to deny them to us. If we take them to much for granted we could lose them. And that is also natural law.