Dr. J Budziszewski give a nice summary of Natural Law. I would also recommend his book What We Can’t Not Know.
Reader Interactions
Comments
ken selenssays
Pat,
Very thought-provoking. I must admit that I haven’t given this much thought, probably because most of my studies are in pre-medieval mystical theology. I am not saying that these are mutually exclusive, but perhaps things can be arranged differently then ‘natural lawyers’ advocate. Even if it is true that one cannot not know such things, the freedom to refuse is also a part of the natural law. Enforcement of such laws should remain in the hands of the Creator, and not in the hands of those who believe in the Creator. Just as faith should not be coerced by pagans before Constantine, neither should natural law be coerced amongst humanity today. I’m not entirely sure that natural law falls outside of faith. The Greek word for faith is defined as a process of persuasion from God, I am convinced that natural law is a part of this process. Scholasticism is plagued by hyper dualisms that I just do not see. I hope I am communicating clearly, this is thick subject matter.
ken
ken selenssays
My last email was certainly disjointed. When I denied mutual exclusivity, and spoke of a different arrangement, my intention was to speak from theological studies of the first few centuries and on through to some of the Patristic era. Certain lines within these time periods ‘could’ speak to our contemporary situation more successfully than later medieval constructs.
A ‘social construct’ will contain natural law from those who gently advocate for it persuasively. Inevitably, natural law will be a part of the social construct intrinsically, if it truly cannot not be known. This will be realized outside of the persuasion of its advocates. Edicts within the social construct that fall outside of natural law are there because of a lack of success in persuasion. This lack of success must at least partially be the consequence of abuses of power by Christians when they did process the ultimate authority . There is no one that can rightly deny that Christianity is guilty of broad violence in it’s history. Any injustice that Christians face from contemporary social constructs must be an act of ‘bearing the Cross’. So, natural law can be a universal ethos, but the Logos to discern is ‘supernatural’ regardless of it’s universal dispersement. Thrse laws are real, and are a divine imperative to uphold. Nevertheless, withn this imperative is a requirement of free will to acept. Consequences are built within the system when natural laws are broken that fall outside of the social construct. And, I only trust God‘s ability to justly discipline. Beginning with von Balthasar’s hopeful universal salvation, I perhaps trust even more strongly in God’s corrective act of justice in love.
Can you tell that I like the song, just a bit…? The theological significance of the lyrics with that Appalacian harmonization rocks me to the core… the Avett Brothers grandfather was a Methodist minister that received death threats because of his support for civil rights in the south.
You never told me what you thought of the song…? I would love to hear your thoughts on all of the above? Dialogue is very helpful for all parties.
ken
Pat Flynnsays
Ken – listened to the song. Not my usual style, but I like it! You also made some interesting points, which I plan to respond to fully in a future post; one that should be up fairly soon with respect to natural law. Thanks for contributing, as always.
ken selenssays
Sounds good… quite look forward to all your theology and philosophy programming. ken
Pat Flynnsays
I’m very happy to hear that, Ken, and enjoy your musings on the blog–your passion and dedication is both clear and inspiring. I’m building the following out into an extended post on natural law, but here are a few of my initial thoughts from what you said earlier.
…
Natural law theory: The point is to expand upon our basic and immediate moral intuitions in a well-reason, and systematic way; intuitions which Scripture often specifically reveals the meaning behind, or instructions to follow therefrom (think the decalogue). There is, of course, much debate among philosophers on how closely a legal system should follow the natural law in terms of prohibitions, etc–that is, if they are even natural law philosophers, at all; many aren’t–but almost no natural law theorist would advocate that it should follow it exactly. That is, not everything considered immoral (or even amoral) from a natural law perspective need, or should be, illegal. That said, for any society to function there must be some legal system which is (hopefully) reflective and prescriptive of sound moral philosophy, which I would argue only natural law theory is capable to provide. To suggest otherwise is to commit the angelistic fallacy. As much as the libertarian in me would love to see a stateless society, utopia is not of this world. To imagine otherwise is the mistake of virtually every communist.
I would also suggest not thinking of the natural law as some would-be legal system to be imposed, but rather a divinely-inspired (divinely-designed, really) blueprint for human flourishing; if anything, something to be proposed (rather than imposed), and, indeed, something that always has been championed through the Christian tradition from the very beginning, until it was thrown out by most of the anti-reason Protestant thinkers (who thought reason was too fallible to discern morality apart form Scripture) and secular Enlightenment thinkers (though they could never fully discard it; as we see, the founding documents of America are “wired Catholic”; that is, by the principles of natural law. Locke was particularly ironic in his promoting of natural law at a political level, then somehow rejecting it on the metaphysical. He has never made a whole lot of sense to me.). Now just because much of natural law theory came to its most formal development in the scholastic thinkers (Aquinas especially) that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there before. It was. Natural law is, well, natural: an innate guide for living well and the way God intends for us. Not only is the natural law written on our hearts, as Scripture reveals, but is accessible to all from any background, tradition, or perspective. It’s what–as Professor J puts it–we can’t not know. But our moral intuition isn’t perfect, so that’s where natural law *theory* comes in. It seeks to expand upon these basic, moral intuitions, deepen our moral education, and provide tools for hard situations. This is critically important for today’s society, as we fall ever more into moral confusion and relativism, thanks, in no small part, to the overall morally debased nature of academia and influence of postmodernism and secularism. Natural law theory helps to hedge against the failed moral systems based upon absolutes (utility, tolerance, justice, etc), from expanding one basic moral principle maximally, while contracting others sometimes down to nothing. Natural law theory is what keeps our moral system properly in tune.
“In tune”, I think is the right way of putting it, since when society’s go wrong, it’s not as if they invent an entirely new moral system (that would be as nearly inconceivable as inventing a new multiplication table) but rather begin to distort the natural law, refuse to see certain parts of it, or lean too heavily toward one part without a proper understanding or balance of others, or how to apply what’s already given by the natural law. Hence, why the study of natural law theory is so important, since the natural law itself is not only something we can all perceive; it is also something we can all distort, or even deny.
For example, every human society has always interpreted that one should offer care to a neighbor, but not every society has seen that every human being is, in fact, their neighbor. Some might think of only their countrymen as neighbors, or people of the same skin color or heritage, etc. Maybe just their own tribe. Natural law theory demonstrates that we cannot discriminate. Every human being by what they are [not what they look like (racism), or what they can do (utilitarianism)] is deserving of dignity, fair treatment, respect, and life. We are not beyond these problems, even in today’s society. Look at abortion, for example. A controversial matter, but one, in my view, which should not be–it is rather the result of moral confusion: acting as if one otherwise worthy moral good (freedom of choice) somehow overrides another (human life). But if all humans are deserving of life, then we do not get to discriminate against life regardless of size, level of development, measure of dependency, or whatever: We do not get to choose to destroy a person based on convenience or claims to property rights, etc. Humans either have intrinsic moral worth, or they don’t. And if you agree the answer to that is yes, humans DO have intrinsic moral worth, then you take the next step. If something has human parents, then is it human? And, if it’s growing, then is it alive? Therefore: abortion is immoral (unless there is some overriding ethical justification, which is a very slim set of circumstances, indeed) and, in my view, should be outlawed. For if the government has any duty at all, it’s duty is to protect the lives of its citizens. So, this is one example where I believe natural law theory WOULD illuminate a grave moral catastrophe in society and where laws should be passed in reflection of it. (That said, I would further argue that a proper scholastic view of the natural law is important for such a case, particularly with respect to the notions of actuality and potentiality, but that’s for another post.)
Furthermore, natural law theory not only illuminates what is proximately good for us, but what is ultimately good for us: God. No doubt person is correct in saying that Christians often fail to uphold the Natural Law, but that is no surprise. Christianity starts with the view that we are all somehow very screwed up and in need of much assistance; specifically God’s. So, the fact that people fail to adhere to the natural law–either then or now– is no mark itself against the natural law, nor any reason that the natural law should not be ardently proposed, nor used as the philosophic bedrock from which any just society intentions its laws. We know quite well that merely passing laws against murder won’t prevent all murder, but we also know quite well it is better to have laws against murder than not. We also know we lack omniscience, so any matter of prudence on how to enact legal systems or forms of punishment/incentive will not be perfect (as God’s surely will be), but we also know that it is still better to have legal systems and forms of punishment/incentive than not. It is not enough to simply leave it all up to God, I don’t think. God did not intend for us to be hapless cows absent freewill, but people who have moral lessons to learn, and to teach and pass on what we’ve learned to others. Surely we will mess up but hopefully we will learn those mistakes. The wrong assumption (I believe) would be to stop trying to morally improve altogether and hope that God will just sort it all out on the end–God certainly will sort it all out in the end, but He may not do so in the way Balthasar hopes. I suppose this is where Catholics and Protestants will often disagree. Catholics believe that if people are saved, we have only God to thank, but if people are not saved, we have only ourselves to blame. And while I appreciate the theology of Balthasar, I personally do not buy into it much of his optimism. I surely hope for it, and Catholics are permitted to believe *in the possibility* of universal salvation, but to me that runs into too many difficulties against human free will and a loving God who respects his creatures freedom to choose against Him. It is sort of a matching, though extreme, opposite of Calvinism and full on double-predestination. I tend (currently) to land somewhere in the middle.
That said, I’m glad you shared the song, again. As mentioned, it’s not my usual style but I very much enjoyed it and can see why you wanted me to have a listen. Thanks for the thoughtful contributions, Ken.
ken selens says
Pat,
Very thought-provoking. I must admit that I haven’t given this much thought, probably because most of my studies are in pre-medieval mystical theology. I am not saying that these are mutually exclusive, but perhaps things can be arranged differently then ‘natural lawyers’ advocate. Even if it is true that one cannot not know such things, the freedom to refuse is also a part of the natural law. Enforcement of such laws should remain in the hands of the Creator, and not in the hands of those who believe in the Creator. Just as faith should not be coerced by pagans before Constantine, neither should natural law be coerced amongst humanity today. I’m not entirely sure that natural law falls outside of faith. The Greek word for faith is defined as a process of persuasion from God, I am convinced that natural law is a part of this process. Scholasticism is plagued by hyper dualisms that I just do not see. I hope I am communicating clearly, this is thick subject matter.
ken
ken selens says
My last email was certainly disjointed. When I denied mutual exclusivity, and spoke of a different arrangement, my intention was to speak from theological studies of the first few centuries and on through to some of the Patristic era. Certain lines within these time periods ‘could’ speak to our contemporary situation more successfully than later medieval constructs.
A ‘social construct’ will contain natural law from those who gently advocate for it persuasively. Inevitably, natural law will be a part of the social construct intrinsically, if it truly cannot not be known. This will be realized outside of the persuasion of its advocates. Edicts within the social construct that fall outside of natural law are there because of a lack of success in persuasion. This lack of success must at least partially be the consequence of abuses of power by Christians when they did process the ultimate authority . There is no one that can rightly deny that Christianity is guilty of broad violence in it’s history. Any injustice that Christians face from contemporary social constructs must be an act of ‘bearing the Cross’. So, natural law can be a universal ethos, but the Logos to discern is ‘supernatural’ regardless of it’s universal dispersement. Thrse laws are real, and are a divine imperative to uphold. Nevertheless, withn this imperative is a requirement of free will to acept. Consequences are built within the system when natural laws are broken that fall outside of the social construct. And, I only trust God‘s ability to justly discipline. Beginning with von Balthasar’s hopeful universal salvation, I perhaps trust even more strongly in God’s corrective act of justice in love.
ken
ken selens says
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aaU2HvRhCPw
Can you tell that I like the song, just a bit…? The theological significance of the lyrics with that Appalacian harmonization rocks me to the core… the Avett Brothers grandfather was a Methodist minister that received death threats because of his support for civil rights in the south.
You never told me what you thought of the song…? I would love to hear your thoughts on all of the above? Dialogue is very helpful for all parties.
ken
Pat Flynn says
Ken – listened to the song. Not my usual style, but I like it! You also made some interesting points, which I plan to respond to fully in a future post; one that should be up fairly soon with respect to natural law. Thanks for contributing, as always.
ken selens says
Sounds good… quite look forward to all your theology and philosophy programming. ken
Pat Flynn says
I’m very happy to hear that, Ken, and enjoy your musings on the blog–your passion and dedication is both clear and inspiring. I’m building the following out into an extended post on natural law, but here are a few of my initial thoughts from what you said earlier.
…
Natural law theory: The point is to expand upon our basic and immediate moral intuitions in a well-reason, and systematic way; intuitions which Scripture often specifically reveals the meaning behind, or instructions to follow therefrom (think the decalogue). There is, of course, much debate among philosophers on how closely a legal system should follow the natural law in terms of prohibitions, etc–that is, if they are even natural law philosophers, at all; many aren’t–but almost no natural law theorist would advocate that it should follow it exactly. That is, not everything considered immoral (or even amoral) from a natural law perspective need, or should be, illegal. That said, for any society to function there must be some legal system which is (hopefully) reflective and prescriptive of sound moral philosophy, which I would argue only natural law theory is capable to provide. To suggest otherwise is to commit the angelistic fallacy. As much as the libertarian in me would love to see a stateless society, utopia is not of this world. To imagine otherwise is the mistake of virtually every communist.
I would also suggest not thinking of the natural law as some would-be legal system to be imposed, but rather a divinely-inspired (divinely-designed, really) blueprint for human flourishing; if anything, something to be proposed (rather than imposed), and, indeed, something that always has been championed through the Christian tradition from the very beginning, until it was thrown out by most of the anti-reason Protestant thinkers (who thought reason was too fallible to discern morality apart form Scripture) and secular Enlightenment thinkers (though they could never fully discard it; as we see, the founding documents of America are “wired Catholic”; that is, by the principles of natural law. Locke was particularly ironic in his promoting of natural law at a political level, then somehow rejecting it on the metaphysical. He has never made a whole lot of sense to me.). Now just because much of natural law theory came to its most formal development in the scholastic thinkers (Aquinas especially) that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there before. It was. Natural law is, well, natural: an innate guide for living well and the way God intends for us. Not only is the natural law written on our hearts, as Scripture reveals, but is accessible to all from any background, tradition, or perspective. It’s what–as Professor J puts it–we can’t not know. But our moral intuition isn’t perfect, so that’s where natural law *theory* comes in. It seeks to expand upon these basic, moral intuitions, deepen our moral education, and provide tools for hard situations. This is critically important for today’s society, as we fall ever more into moral confusion and relativism, thanks, in no small part, to the overall morally debased nature of academia and influence of postmodernism and secularism. Natural law theory helps to hedge against the failed moral systems based upon absolutes (utility, tolerance, justice, etc), from expanding one basic moral principle maximally, while contracting others sometimes down to nothing. Natural law theory is what keeps our moral system properly in tune.
“In tune”, I think is the right way of putting it, since when society’s go wrong, it’s not as if they invent an entirely new moral system (that would be as nearly inconceivable as inventing a new multiplication table) but rather begin to distort the natural law, refuse to see certain parts of it, or lean too heavily toward one part without a proper understanding or balance of others, or how to apply what’s already given by the natural law. Hence, why the study of natural law theory is so important, since the natural law itself is not only something we can all perceive; it is also something we can all distort, or even deny.
For example, every human society has always interpreted that one should offer care to a neighbor, but not every society has seen that every human being is, in fact, their neighbor. Some might think of only their countrymen as neighbors, or people of the same skin color or heritage, etc. Maybe just their own tribe. Natural law theory demonstrates that we cannot discriminate. Every human being by what they are [not what they look like (racism), or what they can do (utilitarianism)] is deserving of dignity, fair treatment, respect, and life. We are not beyond these problems, even in today’s society. Look at abortion, for example. A controversial matter, but one, in my view, which should not be–it is rather the result of moral confusion: acting as if one otherwise worthy moral good (freedom of choice) somehow overrides another (human life). But if all humans are deserving of life, then we do not get to discriminate against life regardless of size, level of development, measure of dependency, or whatever: We do not get to choose to destroy a person based on convenience or claims to property rights, etc. Humans either have intrinsic moral worth, or they don’t. And if you agree the answer to that is yes, humans DO have intrinsic moral worth, then you take the next step. If something has human parents, then is it human? And, if it’s growing, then is it alive? Therefore: abortion is immoral (unless there is some overriding ethical justification, which is a very slim set of circumstances, indeed) and, in my view, should be outlawed. For if the government has any duty at all, it’s duty is to protect the lives of its citizens. So, this is one example where I believe natural law theory WOULD illuminate a grave moral catastrophe in society and where laws should be passed in reflection of it. (That said, I would further argue that a proper scholastic view of the natural law is important for such a case, particularly with respect to the notions of actuality and potentiality, but that’s for another post.)
Furthermore, natural law theory not only illuminates what is proximately good for us, but what is ultimately good for us: God. No doubt person is correct in saying that Christians often fail to uphold the Natural Law, but that is no surprise. Christianity starts with the view that we are all somehow very screwed up and in need of much assistance; specifically God’s. So, the fact that people fail to adhere to the natural law–either then or now– is no mark itself against the natural law, nor any reason that the natural law should not be ardently proposed, nor used as the philosophic bedrock from which any just society intentions its laws. We know quite well that merely passing laws against murder won’t prevent all murder, but we also know quite well it is better to have laws against murder than not. We also know we lack omniscience, so any matter of prudence on how to enact legal systems or forms of punishment/incentive will not be perfect (as God’s surely will be), but we also know that it is still better to have legal systems and forms of punishment/incentive than not. It is not enough to simply leave it all up to God, I don’t think. God did not intend for us to be hapless cows absent freewill, but people who have moral lessons to learn, and to teach and pass on what we’ve learned to others. Surely we will mess up but hopefully we will learn those mistakes. The wrong assumption (I believe) would be to stop trying to morally improve altogether and hope that God will just sort it all out on the end–God certainly will sort it all out in the end, but He may not do so in the way Balthasar hopes. I suppose this is where Catholics and Protestants will often disagree. Catholics believe that if people are saved, we have only God to thank, but if people are not saved, we have only ourselves to blame. And while I appreciate the theology of Balthasar, I personally do not buy into it much of his optimism. I surely hope for it, and Catholics are permitted to believe *in the possibility* of universal salvation, but to me that runs into too many difficulties against human free will and a loving God who respects his creatures freedom to choose against Him. It is sort of a matching, though extreme, opposite of Calvinism and full on double-predestination. I tend (currently) to land somewhere in the middle.
That said, I’m glad you shared the song, again. As mentioned, it’s not my usual style but I very much enjoyed it and can see why you wanted me to have a listen. Thanks for the thoughtful contributions, Ken.