Natural Law – What is Law?

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, 'What is law?' may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence

Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

Natural Law – The History

The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics -- The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians -- Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man's Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

Natural Law – The Conclusion

In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htm

Natural Law – What is Law?

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, 'What is law?' may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).

Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence

Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

Natural Law – The History

The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics -- The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians -- Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man's Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

Natural Law – The Conclusion

In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htm

You might want to read related articles in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 

Truth is at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Natural Law Theories at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-theories/

Natural Law Tradition in Ethics at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Truth is the actual and stubborn behavior of things in nature, obeying laws of nature. What we call truth in our usage is an approximate understanding of the actual truth in nature, which is envisioned physically, described mathematically and verified empirically. The approximation is due to the incompleteness of the  knowledge we have about everything that impacts the things we claim we know their behaviors. There are several invisible unknown things in the universe which impact behaviors of things we utilize or observe. The fundamental laws of nature are not precisely known and  described, at least from the fact that quantum mechanics is not fully known,  the fundamental axioms of mathematics and that of thought processes are not exhaustive. 

Intelligence does not help someone determine moral ends -- unless the intellect has already had moral truths inscribed on it indelibly, through natural law.

- Daniel P

Hello Bob, in my mind, there is a natural law of the physical universe which is what science - Physics, Biology are based on (like gravity, action and reaction etc).

There is also a natural moral law, like doing no harm, doing good to others when possible etc.  Truth (I think) is the basis of this natural moral law that governs the conscience.  Thanks.  

Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat. It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately.

Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined by Locke three hundred years ago, but a real and potent force in today's world, which still today forcibly constrains the lawless arrogance of government officials, as it did in Dade county very recently.

The opponents of natural rights often complain that the advocates of natural rights are not logically consistent, because we continually shift between inequivalent definitions of natural law. They gleefully manufacture long lists of “logical contradictions”. Indeed, the definitions we use are not logically equivalent, but because of the nature of man and the nature of the world, they are substantially equivalent in practice. These complaints by the opponents of natural rights are trivial hair splitting, and pointless legalistic logic chopping. It is easy to imagine in principle a world where these definitions were not equivalent. If humans were intelligent bees, rather than intelligent apes, these definitions would not be equivalent, and the concept of natural law would be trivial or meaningless, but we are what we are and the world is what it is, and these definitions, the definitions of natural law, are equivalent, not by some proof of pure reason, but by history, experience, economics, and observation.

 ~ James A. Donald

http://jim.com/rights.html

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. Galileo Galilei

I think the above quote answers your question

Nature follows certain rules....what you call as "natural law" .

We know some of them, we understood some of them, we follow some of them and tragically we are over ruling some them....

The truth is....what we are to day on this planet unable to understand all that is around, trying to interpret in our own way and facing the problems.

Nature and truth are inseparable aspects of the universe.....

we all just can follow it....they are beyond our hold.

The natural law is an instrument for progress, not a weapon of revolution. ~ R. Kirk

"Natural law" has two meanings: (1) a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct, and (2) an observable law relating to natural phenomena. I interpret "natural law" in the present question in the second meaning. "Truth" means (1) the quality or state of being true, and (2) the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, and a fact or belief that is accepted as true. From these meanings, I think as follows: "Natural law" captures and explains plural facts by a single set of statements. On the other hand, a single fact can be called "truth" without explanatory power for other similar facts.

Dear Mr Skiles ,

From my life experience - YES !!!!

Natural laws are not concocted by us ,they are not to be seen  but experienced . Experience cannot be shared , has to be endured (earthquakes ,  epidemics... ).

Science looks for justification and root causes but eventually unable to provide with solutions => acceptance of natural law with least resistance is the truth of life ...

For though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men, being biased by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases. ~ John Locke

Dear Dr Skiles

Truth is a natural behavior not a natural low. I think lying is the natural low as we see many men lie when they are afraid or threaten istead of telling the truth.

Regards

Natural laws are based on the truth & their cannot be any modification or change in the truth of the natural law.

Truth is based on the principle of honesty which is the best policy & human beings for his selfish end or personal benefit can not change the principle of honesty which is the best policy .

With this i take liberty to express my views in my article under the captioned '' Truth -Our Inner Voice which i submit herewith for your perusal & also our valued readers .

Bear Bob,

One determination is not sufficient when talking on two. We cannot know natural laws only their interpretations. The reflexions of natural laws in our mind are corrupted at least with as much errors as the simple truth you mentioned.  Scientists sometimes flatter themselves to be able to approach natural laws. If only…

I agree with Andras Bozsik's answer.

Philosophical backgrounds differed according to each person or each school, such as the theory of the idea( Plato), idea of rationality ( Aristotle) and the reflection of the will of the almighty creator.

It is difficult for us to find out the natural law. Theories need to be tested by many people to arrive at some truth, that we all agree about (like gravity, speed of light).

Some true things appear to be true, but might not be after tedious testing.

In nature everything is connected, interwoven, subject to natural law. We cannot separate ourselves from that, no matter how hard we try. ~ J. R. Anderson

@ Andras, asserted: "We cannot know natural laws only their interpretations."

Dear Andras,

If your assertion is correct (and I will not perfidiously argue against it), then how can we ever find /recognize /know what is a truth? Isn't every seeker-after-truth (scientists ? philosophers ? theologians ? metaphysicists ?) on a wild-golden-goose-chase, and for every golden-egg (100% pure truth) he imagines he has found, on closer examination seen to be made only of worthless base metal (his own biased interpretation), and had only a thin, shiny plating which had fooled him, only reflecting a golden glint (perhaps only sunlight reflecting off his Nobel Prize ... or could it possibly have been that he was struck by a ray of the real truth glimmering from a great distance ... beyond [present] human comprehension and reach ... )?

Should one be discouraged from continuing to seek the truth, knowing it can never be truly found /recognized or /grasped?

My respects,

Bob

Is truth the same as "natural law?

Let’s look at one of ‘truth’ definitions first – “that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality”. As ‘truth’ is measured against ‘natural law’, we’ll look at its standard definitions as well:

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htm  “is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. “

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/natural+law  “A body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong, often ... “

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law “Natural law. ... Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, as it is determined by nature, is universal.”

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20law “Define natural law: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding human society in the absence of or in…”

In physics, Newton’s mechanic was based on that time facts and reality. However, Einstein’s relativistic mechanics (general relativity), which was being proved up until recently, was based on new facts and reality. Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg quantum mechanics was based on new facts and realities as well. Each of those mechanics does not contradict each other, and is perfectly correct within its realms of experimental facts and realities that they’ve been derived for. Certainly, nobody doubts that Newton’s gravitation, relativistic, and quantum worlds of facts and realities existed before these discoveries were made. However, it teaches us that even in sciences facts and realities are not always available to humans, and are subjects to a possible change. Hence, ‘truth’ in physics sometimes goes through a certain change as time is passing by.

‘Natural law’ is also based on human society facts and realities which go through an obvious evolution over time. In this regard, I would consider ‘truth’ and ‘natural law’ are quite similar. Nevertheless, ‘natural law’ “refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior.” This is something that does not exist in physics and natural sciences in general. Perhaps, the almighty Creator had ‘reasons’, when defining physical reality, but nobody had an opportunity to argue about since. So that I think ‘truth’ is to some extent similar, but not exactly equal to ‘natural law’.

Dear Len Leonid Mizrah,

You note that what is "truth" seeming to evolve (change) through time as being the one characteristic you believe may most clearly distinguish "truth" from "natural law" (which is presumed to be unchanging?). However, how do you know that natural law does not also evolve (change) through time, as well? Isn't that simply a (human) belief (perception /definition) for natural law, based on scant evidence (mostly pronouncements from archaic religious texts ?)?

In the case of the examples you give (of the perceived change in "truth" from Newtonian to quantum physics), was it "truth" that actually changed, or only our (human) interpretation or perception of what we (human scientists) accept as "truth." Einstein-Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg provided their new interpretations of what was "the truth," but ask yourself, did the actual truth change one iota from the time Newton interpreted (described) his "vision" (version) of the truth, and the new interpretations offered by our 20-th-century geniuses? And will have the "truth" evolved (changed) even further whenever a new genius convinces us that Einstein-Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg's interpretations of our physical universe were , if not all in error,  at least not completely accurate (i.e., they were erroneous or not truthful)?

Dear Bob Skiles,

Thanks for reading and discussing my entry. See my comments below preceded with >>

Bob Skiles · 19.72  · State of Texas (retraité)

Dear Len Leonid Mizrah,

You note that what is "truth" seeming to evolve (change) through time as being the one characteristic you believe may most clearly distinguish "truth" from "natural law" (which is presumed to be unchanging?).

______

>> It is quite opposite. I found ‘truth’ and ‘natural law’ being similar in a sense of having both evolved over time. Here is the respective citation:

“However, it teaches us that even in sciences facts and realities are not always available to humans, and are subjects to a possible change. Hence, ‘truth’ in physics sometimes goes through a certain change as time is passing by.

‘Natural law’ is also based on human society facts and realities which go through an obvious evolution over time. In this regard, I would consider ‘truth’ and ‘natural law’ are quite similar.”

______

 However, how do you know that natural law does not also evolve (change) through time, as well? Isn't that simply a (human) belief (perception /definition) for natural law, based on scant evidence (mostly pronouncements from archaic religious texts ?)?

______

>> It is not correct. I’ve stated exactly opposite - see the following part of my citation above:

“’Natural law’ is also based on human society facts and realities which go through an obvious evolution over time. In this regard, I would consider ‘truth’ and ‘natural law’ are quite similar.”

I marked some text in bold Italic just for clarity.

______

In the case of the examples you give (of the perceived change in "truth" from Newtonian to quantum physics), was it "truth" that actually changed, or only our (human) interpretation or perception of what we (human scientists) accept as "truth."

______

>> It is an important question. As I mentioned at the beginning of my initial entry, the definition of ‘truth’ is as follows:

•that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

•fact(s), reality, real life, actuality

•a fact or belief that is accepted as true

See this definition’s details in:

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=truth&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS446US446&q=truth&gs_l=hp...0i131j0l2j0i131j0.0.0.0.1941...........0.Ug9YRS0VrTI

I’ve cited the first bullet. The second and third ones decipher ‘truth’ farther by adding to ‘fact’ and ‘reality’ also ‘real life’, ‘actuality’, and ‘belief that is accepted as true’.

It is clear that both part of ‘truth’ that you mentioned - “…”truth” that actually changed, or only our (human) interpretation or perception of what we (human scientists) accept as “truth.”” – are following the ‘truth’ definition. The answer is indeed including both cases.

New facts, reality, actuality in moving from Newtonian to quantum physics list, for instance, discoveries from radioactive elements, photo effect and atomic specter experiments, and up to chain reactions of a decay of heavy nucleus, and synthesis of light nucleus – both producing gigantic energy. Those are new facts and reality that cannot be explained or understood in the Newtonian physics.

Meanwhile, the interpretation of some known facts has changed as well. A known Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838 – 1916) didn’t believe in reality of atomic structure of materials – he was saying: ”Show me at least one atom” – today’s atomic force microscopes could allow him to do so. Mach’s opponent - another Austrian physicist and philosopher Ludwig Boltzmann (1844-1906) was defending atomic structure of materials, liquids, and gases, and created statistical mechanic that convincingly proved that their properties depend on microscopic parameters of their atoms or molecules.

Transition from Newtonian physics to quantum physics was quite painful, even for the founders of the quantum mechanics. Einstein didn’t believe in the probabilistic interpretation of the quantum mechanics. He was saying something like - the God doesn’t toss a coin to decide through which one of the close two small holes in the wall the incident electron will go through. Many years he was arguing the issue of the probabilistic interpretation with Bohr. Virtually, that helped to establish quantum mechanics and its probabilistic interpretation as a contemporary theoretical physics scientific standard in the micro world.

German physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) who actually founded the quantum theory of energy believed that the Planck’s constant he introduced in the theory is just a theoretical work around. French physicist Lois de Broglie (1892-1987) in his PhD thesis in 1924 postulated that electron is actually a wave where a fundamental meaning of the Planck’s constant was fully uncovered.

All the above confirm ‘truth’ change in transitioning from Newtonian to quantum physics as a set of facts or beliefs that are accepted as true.

______

Einstein-Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg provided their new interpretations of what was "the truth," but ask yourself, did the actual truth change one iota from the time Newton interpreted (described) his "vision" (version) of the truth, and the new interpretations offered by our 20-th-century geniuses?

______

>> Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727) had published his Principles of Natural Philosophy in 1687. Conditionally, we can consider it as the beginning of the Newtonian physics, whereas the eventual domination of the Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg quantum mechanics was achieved near 1950. Over this time interval in approximately 263 years, the ‘truth’ in physics changed dramatically. Industrial powers and weapons based on the quantum physics made profound changes in almost every aspect of important world domains. If the archeological epochs changed over this time from say Baroque to Postmodernism, I would think the actual comparison should be from say Gothic to Postmodernism (it is rather qualitative, than quantitative).

______

And will have the "truth" evolved (changed) even further whenever a new genius convinces us that Einstein-Bohr-Schrodinger-Heisenberg's interpretations of our physical universe were , if not all in error,  at least not completely accurate (i.e., they were erroneous or not truthful)?

______

>> The farther changes in ‘truth’ in physics are possible, though unpredictable. The goal of physics is not to interpret the Universe but to provide new convincing repeatable experimental results and theories that allow qualitatively and quantitatively anticipate large variety of effects in new and important physical domains. Essentially, improving physical universe picture is a derivative task which may or may not be possible as a bottom line result. None of the physicists plans to work on, or be responsible for the entire physical universe picture. It is rather the field for philosophers, science admires, general public, or on occasion - astronomers and astrophysicists.

Physicists never guaranty that established theories will work for all experiments. Just enormous amount of successful results bring a certain assurance of further successes, and clarify the boundaries of certainty. If there is a problem, professional physicists search for their own mistake in the first place. If a real problem is really identified – it is already a big success, as it allows building attack vectors.

A recognition of natural law not only discloses our common human morality but sets limits to every liberty, including freedom of religion...

Religious liberty derives its value and potency from the authentic duty of each human person to conform his mind to the ultimate reality that underlies everything. This conformity of the mind to reality is actually the very definition of truth. The refusal to accept that truth exists is, in fact, a denial of reality...

https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1437

The Enlightenment may have made its most lasting impact in the way we live and think today through its social history. Our institutions and laws, our conception of the state, and our political sensitivity all stem from Enlightenment ideas… Remarkably enough, at the center of these ideas stands the age-old concept of natural law. Much if the Enlightenment’s innovation in in political theory may be traced to a change in the interpretation of that concept. ~ L. Dupré

“…Our institutions and laws, our conception of the state, and our political sensitivity all stem from Enlightenment ideas…”

-  democracy and main approaches at considering of most of  problems in philosophy of Enlightenment, including politic and ethics, Roman law as well,  were formed 2000 years before Enlightenment;  when, for example, any western state’s laws systems now  seems not lesser then in 80% follow to Romans.

That is another thing that 1500 years after Antic times in western countries the laws and ethics were rather far away from Antic’s and “Enlightenment’s” ones…

Cheers

Merry Christmas to all, and my wishes for a happy & prosperous New Year!

The attempt to understand morality in the legalistic terms of a natural law is ancient but is now mostly associated with the formulation given it by Thomas Aquinas in the late thirteenth century. All earlier natural law is commonly seen as leading up to Aquinas’s paradigmatic version, whereas later natural law is understood as deriving from it. ~ K. Haakonsen