Can Natural Law Make A Difference – Righting the Wrongs

Positive Law based in the will of man always leads to tyranny, oppression and evil.  Natural Law is the solution to restore justice and freedom to society.

Today many think the “Natural Law” is about the planetary kingdom, animal kingdom or the vegetable kingdom. The laws of those kingdoms are governed primarily by physics, math, biology and instincts. However, the classical definition of the Natural Law is: universal absolutes that are self-evident given by our Creator as an inborn morality for humanity.[i] When I speak of Natural Law I speak of absolutes from The Creator.

Unlike the other kingdoms mentioned, Natural Law is written on our hearts’, which, are known by our conscience. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.” (Romans 1:18} If one keeps suppressing the truth what follows is a seared conscience. What separates Natural Law from the others? Natural Law has an inward influence of right and wrong. Just because one can snub the influence of Natural Law does not mean it is not binding morally.

Individuals can violate these absolutes, but that does not mean they are not real. A conversation took place in the 17th century between two well-known philosophers’ clarifies this point. Jeremy Bentham stated, “that if men can violate Natural Law, then, there is no such thing as Natural Law.” Of which, Maritain replied, “All this proves nothing against Natural Law, anymore than a mistake in addition proves anything against arithmetic, or the mistakes of certain primitive peoples for whom the stars were holes in the tent which covered the world, proves anything against astronomy.”

Recently, some reporters asked Stephen Hawking’s what was his definition of Christians, which, he said, “Christian are afraid of the darkness.” Afterwards, John Lennox, another brilliant mathematician at Cambridge, was asked what was his definition of atheists, which, he replied to Hawking’s answer, “atheists’ are afraid of the light!’’ Simplistically, here are the two worldviews that are in conflict about what course is best for humanity.

The two major worldviews that are in conflict about morals for politics, civil law, ethics are: One worldview of jurisprudence relaxes solely on positivism[ii]and the other’s foothold is based on Theism[iii]. Jurisprudence based on positivism is grounded merely on science, math and the five senses as truth. Theism is anchored in transcendent authority known by all men from threads of light about right and wrong, which are revealed to all.[iv] Natural law is an emancipation of God’s reason and will, revealed to all mankind, which, when accepted, one receives special revelation that points toward Grace and forgiveness. Natural Law is a bridge to God. Not all accept this unique revelation, but when ignored by enacting positive law, the result will be in conflict with Natural Law; which have open the way for human atrocities. Two sorts of individuals identify with these two worldviews. Professor Budziszewski describes the old sort and the new sort of individual below.

“The old sort knew about the law written on the heart; he heard about it in the plays of Euripides, he read about it in the philosophy of the Stoics, and he studied it in the commentaries of the Roman lawyers.” What about the new sort of individual in this century? He continues, “The new sort does not know about the law written on the heart. Don’t misunderstand—he still feels it pressing upon him inwardly, just as it pressed upon the inwards of the old sort of pagan. However, with a head filled with false sophistication that tells him that right and wrong are invented by culture and are different everywhere, the new sort of pagan mistrusts his own conscience and views guilt as a sign of maladjustment that therapy will remove.”

Has positive law ever gone amuck when it ignored natural law? Yes, a little look at history has recorded many wrongs done to humanity when people disregarded universal moral laws. All institutions divine or secular that have parted ways with Natural Law have been responsible for injustices. What righted the wrongs?

Each of these two worldviews have an appeal process for justice. The atheists’ appeal is to “the Nothing.” This closed system goes something like this: The Nothing billions of light years ago developed indigestion that built up and had a tremendous blowout, passing gas that flung fecal matter into the cosmos. (And the Nothing said, “Does anyone have any toilet paper?) A piece of this fecal material traveled 8 billion light years and finally was flushed into a toilet bowl here on earth. Several more billions of years passed and this fecal material peculated into a higher formed of bacterium. And so the progression goes to where today they claim we are a higher form of intelligent fecal matter. What a fantasy! They call this intelligent. The other worldview, is man was created in the image of God a little lower than the angels and a million miles above the animals.

Natural Law believers’ appeal to a higher court of justice is – The Creator not the Nothing. I quote late Professor Anton-Hermann Chroust, of Notre Dame Law School, he used to tell his students: “The neo-liberal[v] academics repeatedly declare the natural law to be dead, but every twenty-five or so years it comes in again by the back door when some crisis shows the failure of utilitarian positivism.”

Two striking revivals of natural law in this century occurred in reaction to the evils of positive laws of racial segregation in the United States and of Nazi Germany. Leading figures of those eras relied on Natural Law to right the wrongs. For example, Martin Luther King fought against segregation based on Natural Law. MLK explicitly acknowledges his debt to Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, and even where King differs from Thomas he is building on his teacher’s foundation.[vi] MLK also cited Rosa Parks right to protest against busing segregation was founded on Natural Law, which started the civil movement. Being a non-choice minority don’t choose their color or ethnicity.

Non-choice minorities do not chose their color or ethnicity so morality is not at question. Many who choose a certain sexual life style claim they have the right to do so. One day they’re bi-sexually, the next day homosexual, the next day pedophile and the next day whatever? Even when leaning on your rights, if it is not in harmony with Natural Law, they are unjust. For instance, the right for women to abort their child at wholesale is unjust. The same goes for choice-minorities’ pontificating their rights on choosing their sexuality, adulterers, bi-sexual, those of practice bestiality, homosexual, lesbian and the sort, their morality is at question from a moral framework. Nazi Germany, at the end of World War II, with their new courts appealed to Natural Law to prosecute crimes against humanity. Thank goodness many SS officers claimed, they were not guilty of crimes against humanity since it was legal under the Nazi regime. The new German courts had a different point of view.

They Germany’s High Court[vii] recognized “the necessity of universal higher standards of objectively valid suprapositive (power transcending human authorityare seen) principles for the lawmaker” and relied on the Natural Law in punishing actions that were legal (positive laws) under the Nazi regime.”[viii] The power of authority to be just must be in accordance with Natural Law. That is, laws made by law makers and actions of peoples to be just, must be in accordance with Natural Law. All positive laws should be in line with Natural Law for them to be just.

Of course, you choose the worldview you want. You have that power of freewill to do so. Is your choice of origin a piece of fecal matter and assert that to be intelligent, to which, you appeal to the Nothing for injustices against you. What is your origin of your worldview for justice?

[i] Natural law jurisprudence that does provide an alternative—a “fixed standard”—because it integrates the natural law into the plan of the Creator as seen in revelation as well as through reason. Rice, Charles (2011-05-02). 50 Questions On The Natural Law (Kindle Locations 110-111). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

[ii] Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge,[1] that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge.[2] Denies that existence of Theism or higher law or metaphysics.

[iii] Creator as ruler and authority of the Universe, which has given humanity innate evidence of moral absolutes.

[iv] Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four- footed animals and creeping things.

[v] Italics are mine

[vi]  Budziszewski, J. (2009-08-20). Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (p. 82). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

[vii] ibid

[viii] Henrich Rommen, “Natural Law in Decisions of the Federal Supreme Court and of the Constitutional Courts in Germany”, 4 Natural Law Forum, 1, 11, n. 26 (1959).