Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?
Posted: August 4th, 2017, 9:48 am
The famous slogan for natural law theorists is:
"An unjust law, is not a law."
Often the above has been heavily misconstrued, so I will go with the iron-man argument: what is just/morally good ought to be law, and what is unjust ought not to be, and can't be in the real sense because law presupposes justice.
So what is justice? The idea is that moral good can be objectively determined through human reason. This is necessarily assuming that "human reason" is capable of being objective. Right? (I'm legitimately asking if I'm construing this correctly, I don't want to misinterpret the view before I even get started)
I will be arguing that "human reason" cannot be completely objective.
Let's start with an example, and take Aristotle's (a naturalist's) advice, to always ask why, instead of what.
1. Why is slavery unjust/wrong?
Potential Answer (the answers I give I think are the most convincing, you can give all sorts of answers, but ultimately the same conclusion is reached): Slavery is unjust because it inhibits liberty, potentially our own, or that of others.
2. Why do we value our liberty?
A: Because it aids in our well-being and flourishing.
3. Why do we value our well-being and flourishing?
A: Because it aids in our survival.
4. Why do we value our survival????
A: I don't know how to answer this, it's like asking ourselves what the meaning of life is, finding the answer and then asking our selves what the meaning is of that. We just value it. Almost all of us are wired to want to survive, it's why we exist, i would go so far as to say we have no choice in the matter. But, is there something inherently "good" about the survival/existence of humans in the grand scheme of the universe? Ought we, objectively speaking, exist? It's a morally neutral question, the universe doesn't care whether humans exist or not.
Objectively it's not necessary that we ought survive, so how can we say that it is we ought to uphold human well-being and liberty because they are inherently, objectively good, and out-law slavery because it is inherently bad?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or if I've gotten my point across. Ultimately, I agree with quite a bit of Natural Law Theory, but I just cant get on board with the idea that there is inherent bad or good outside of the human experience.
I would make the argument that slavery ought to be outlawed, not because slavery is inherently unjust/bad, it's just counter-productive to what we we want: liberty --> well-being --> survival. So slavery is bad, and liberty good, only as a consequence that treating them as such gets us to our final goal, not because they're inherently so.
What legal theory would my above reasoning fit under?
I agree with Natural Law Theory in the sense that human reason determines "good" and "bad", but i would add that human reason is subjective and we have very little choice, if any, in the matter, and so we can't say that we "ought" to do anything.
"An unjust law, is not a law."
Often the above has been heavily misconstrued, so I will go with the iron-man argument: what is just/morally good ought to be law, and what is unjust ought not to be, and can't be in the real sense because law presupposes justice.
So what is justice? The idea is that moral good can be objectively determined through human reason. This is necessarily assuming that "human reason" is capable of being objective. Right? (I'm legitimately asking if I'm construing this correctly, I don't want to misinterpret the view before I even get started)
I will be arguing that "human reason" cannot be completely objective.
Let's start with an example, and take Aristotle's (a naturalist's) advice, to always ask why, instead of what.
1. Why is slavery unjust/wrong?
Potential Answer (the answers I give I think are the most convincing, you can give all sorts of answers, but ultimately the same conclusion is reached): Slavery is unjust because it inhibits liberty, potentially our own, or that of others.
2. Why do we value our liberty?
A: Because it aids in our well-being and flourishing.
3. Why do we value our well-being and flourishing?
A: Because it aids in our survival.
4. Why do we value our survival????
A: I don't know how to answer this, it's like asking ourselves what the meaning of life is, finding the answer and then asking our selves what the meaning is of that. We just value it. Almost all of us are wired to want to survive, it's why we exist, i would go so far as to say we have no choice in the matter. But, is there something inherently "good" about the survival/existence of humans in the grand scheme of the universe? Ought we, objectively speaking, exist? It's a morally neutral question, the universe doesn't care whether humans exist or not.
Objectively it's not necessary that we ought survive, so how can we say that it is we ought to uphold human well-being and liberty because they are inherently, objectively good, and out-law slavery because it is inherently bad?
I'm not sure where I'm going with this, or if I've gotten my point across. Ultimately, I agree with quite a bit of Natural Law Theory, but I just cant get on board with the idea that there is inherent bad or good outside of the human experience.
I would make the argument that slavery ought to be outlawed, not because slavery is inherently unjust/bad, it's just counter-productive to what we we want: liberty --> well-being --> survival. So slavery is bad, and liberty good, only as a consequence that treating them as such gets us to our final goal, not because they're inherently so.
What legal theory would my above reasoning fit under?
I agree with Natural Law Theory in the sense that human reason determines "good" and "bad", but i would add that human reason is subjective and we have very little choice, if any, in the matter, and so we can't say that we "ought" to do anything.