When most people hear the term “natural law,” the first thing that comes to mind are the laws of nature—things like gravity, test tubes, and E = mc2. Natural law has to do with the way things work in nature, and can be described with mathematical formulae that allow scientists to make precise predictions.
In the context of politics and ethics, however, “natural law” means something related, yet different. Natural Law Theory is the idea that basic ethical truths are ingrained in human nature and are objectively discernible through careful consideration of the world around us. Supporters of Natural Law Theory point to the areas of commonality between all the major religions, philosophies, and ethical systems of the world on basic points of morality. Using natural law as a basis, it’s possible to find basic areas of common ground that most people can agree on, regardless of their political, religious, or cultural background. Let’s look at some examples to see how it works.
Case Study: Murder
One of the most basic laws of ethics is “Thou shalt not murder.” Far from being only a biblical commandment (although it is that), the truth that innocent human lives should not be destroyed is one of the most universal human values of all time.
Whenever cultures or nations have broken this most basic of natural laws, they have done so not by justifying murder or arguing that murder is acceptable. They have done so by claiming that their victims are not innocent or are not fully human. For example, cultures that commit genocide do so by claiming that the other culture is either guilty of some crime or is not completely human.
Almost all but the most demented psychopaths would agree that human life is worth protecting. The disagreements come over who is included in that definition. These disagreements are large, and they are important. But they can only be resolved if both sides can fully acknowledge their common value, rooted in natural law: murder is wrong.
Case Study: Stealing
Natural law is not only based on the consensus of different cultures on what’s right and what’s wrong. It’s also based on common-sense observation of the world around us, and a careful consideration of what actions lead to human flourishing.
The most basic of all natural laws is that human life must be protected and upheld. This doesn’t just include the prohibition of murder; it also logically encompasses other ethical issues as well, such as stealing.
The prohibition against stealing is another law that is agreed-upon by almost every nation and culture. However, even if there were no man-made laws saying “Stealing is wrong,” it would still be possible to figure out that stealing is wrong. Here’s how:
If the most basic natural law is that human life must be protected and upheld, then it logically follows that depriving other humans of the objects that they need for their livelihood or have created as a result of their livelihood violates the most basic natural law. In essence, it’s an extension of the ancient principle of the Golden Rule: Do unto others what you would have others do unto you.
The Importance of Natural Law
In a nation such as the United States, where there is no state religion, philosophy, or ideology, it’s important that people from very different cultural and religious backgrounds be able to work together to live in a common society. This is only possible if they (1) are able to agree on basic ethical principles and (2) are willing to work together. The second of these is an issue of attitude or outlook, and belongs to the domain of practical appeals to cooperate. The first condition, however, belongs to the theoretical realm, and is only possible from a natural law perspective.
We can realize the necessity of having a natural law perspective if we consider the alternatives. Broadly speaking, the two other main alternatives to natural law thinking are cultural domination and cultural relativism. Cultural domination refers to the situation in which one culture, religion, or philosophy is legally enshrined to dominate all others, while cultural relativism refers to the belief that there are no universal ethical principles, with each culture standing up for its own ideals in an “every man for himself” sort of way.
Both of these alternatives to natural law thinking result in serious problems. On the one hand, cultural domination is a very natural and stable form of governance (most nations in the past have operated under some form of cultural domination), but it is antithetical to the ideals that America was founded upon, such as freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and freedom of assembly. Additionally, cultural domination reduces ethical issues to mere propaganda of the prevailing viewpoint, and prevents the healthy cross-cultural exchange of ideas that has characterized many thriving civilizations of the past.
On the other hand, cultural relativism is no better than cultural domination. Cultural relativism is not a workable philosophy for the long-term, since its “everyone for themselves” philosophy simply leads to power struggles as cultures struggle to maintain their distinct identity as opposed to everyone else. In the end, there winds up being no universal or objective ethical values that unite everyone and help them live together in a common society, and the result is either a multitude of micro-societies that don’t interact with each other, or the emergence of one culture over all others in a new form of cultural domination.
If humans from different cultural and religious backgrounds are going to live peaceably together in the same country, they will need to find common ground in common values that work together for the common good. And that means natural law.
Over the next several weeks, we will be examining the core values of the American Solidarity Party and Christian Democracy, and show how they bring together the core concerns of people from across the political spectrum to provide solutions that will benefit everyone in their communities.