English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

6 answers

The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards. There are a number of different kinds of natural law theories of law, differing from each other with respect to the role that morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms.

1. Two Kinds of Natural Law Theory

At the outset, it is important to distinguish two kinds of theory that go by the name of natural law. The first is a theory of morality that is roughly characterized by the following theses. First, moral propositions have what is sometimes called objective standing in the sense that such propositions are the bearers of objective truth-value; that is, moral propositions can be objectively true or false. Though moral objectivism is sometimes equated with moral realism (see, e.g., Moore 1992, 190: "the truth of any moral proposition lies in its correspondence with a mind- and convention-independent moral reality"), the relationship between the two theories is controversial. Geoffrey Sayre-McCord (1988), for example, views moral objectivism as one species of moral realism, but not the only form; on Sayre-McCord's view, moral subjectivism and moral intersubjectivism are also forms of moral realism. Strictly speaking, then, natural law moral theory is committed only to the objectivity of moral norms.

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").

But there is another kind of natural law theory having to do with the relationship of morality to law. According to natural law theory of law, there is no clean division between the notion of law and the notion of morality. Though there are different versions of natural law theory, all subscribe to the thesis that there are at least some laws that depend for their "authority" not on some pre-existing human convention, but on the logical relationship in which they stand to moral standards. Otherwise put, some norms are authoritative in virtue of their moral content, even when there is no convention that makes moral merit a criterion of legal validity. The idea that the concepts of law and morality intersect in some way is called the Overlap Thesis.

As an empirical matter, many natural law moral theorists are also natural law legal theorists, but the two theories, strictly speaking, are logically independent. One can deny natural law theory of law but hold a natural law theory of morality. John Austin, the most influential of the early legal positivists, for example, denied the Overlap Thesis but held something that resembles a natural law ethical theory.

Indeed, Austin explicitly endorsed the view that it is not necessarily true that the legal validity of a norm depends on whether its content conforms to morality. But while Austin thus denied the Overlap Thesis, he accepted an objectivist moral theory; indeed, Austin inherited his utilitarianism almost wholesale from J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Here it is worth noting that utilitarians sometimes seem to suggest that they derive their utilitarianism from certain facts about human nature; as Bentham once wrote, "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne" (Bentham 1948, 1). Thus, a commitment to natural law theory of morality is consistent with the denial of natural law theory of law.

Conversely, one could, though this would be unusual, accept a natural law theory of law without holding a natural law theory of morality. One could, for example, hold that the conceptual point of law is, in part, to reproduce the demands of morality, but also hold a form of ethical subjectivism (or relativism). On this peculiar view, the conceptual point of law would be to enforce those standards that are morally valid in virtue of cultural consensus. For this reason, natural law theory of law is logically independent of natural law theory of morality. The remainder of this essay will be exclusively concerned with natural law theories of law.



Taken from Interenet encyclopedia of Philosophy

James Fieser, Ph.D., founder and general editor

Bradley Dowden, Ph.D., general editor

2006-10-10 02:34:06 · answer #1 · answered by Marianne N 2 · 1 0

Advantages Of Natural Law

2016-12-12 13:58:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

oh ho ho! a good number of disadvantages: absoloute regulation no leighway different than concept of double result, it truly relies entirely on what's PERCIEVED as god will so ought to be incorrect, it truly is outstandingly unfair for non christians, it truly is an absoloute regulation and "can not" be broken, it takes away all morality from a difficulty so treats each and each diverse difficulty the comparable regardless of its adjustments. it has reward of taking morality away so an indivudaul can not effect it themselves, it truly is a strict regulation so a proper or incorrect decision of an act is truly acheived. yet in certainty this is it. you like extra records in basic terms seem up organic regulation in wikipedia and press ctrl and f and seek for the section you like eg "doble result" good situation philosophy

2016-10-02 03:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by sather 4 · 0 0

the devals refrain is ambiguos and sweet , all swords contain 2 edges and natraly the dice, the dice are loaded...

well the theory is natures corse but factualy does water roll up hill ? not often
is a man poor ? often rich with work this is the truth its natures cup

2006-10-10 03:17:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

The simplest example of one natural law.
"The law of diminishing returns".

We want more handouts from the government.
Government takes more and more taxes. They give back to the taxpayers, less and less.

We love ice cream.
The more ice cream one eats, the less appitizing it becomes.

We strive and work to acquire "things".
The more toys one acquires, the less pleasure is derived from them.

2006-10-10 02:45:44 · answer #5 · answered by ed 7 · 0 1

oh ****..marianne said it all:( nothing left for me so i dont see any reason to bother...

2006-10-10 02:36:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers