Religious Philosophy and Natural Law

by Matt Lancaster

There have been many schools of thought throughout history that have espoused the view that law is something independent of individual men. This school of thought has consistently believed that law is not something to be made, but something to be discovered and applied. This has come to be the legal school of thought known as natural law theorists. Nowhere in all of history do we find more of the men who built this school than in the time of the Scholastic religious philosophers. They were not only able to reconcile natural law with the theory of an omnipotent deity, but were also to make several advances in the field. The Christian, or Scholastic, theory of natural law has several main premises. The Law is something that is handed down from god, and is not something that can be changed by men, only interpreted and applied. To deviate from ‘Moral Law’ is to bring ruin to oneself in this life and the next. And, the law is above men, all men apply to it equally, whether king or serf.

The case of Moral Law being found within the teachings of god is found best in the bible. The majority of the Ten Commandments and the golden rule have been part of natural law theory since it began. Theft is prohibited by the dictate of god, and by the norms of social cohesion and cooperation. Murder is prohibited for the same reason. Envy is prohibited because it is against the will of god that his lesser subjects should impede his greater subjects, (the opposite was also thought to be true), and prohibited by civil society because envy presupposes redistribution (usually against the owner’s will) of justly acquired resources and property. These theorists also espoused the golden rule, or rather its Confucian version. “Thou shalt not do unto others as thou would not have done unto thyself.” Limitless legal wisdom can be divined from this. Stealing, murder, rape, envy, assault, and numerous other crimes are morally impermissible because a decent man would not wish to have these crimes done unto him. Aquinas deals with all of this explicitly in Summa Theologica, and several other Scholastic philosophers deal with natural law.

To deviate from the laws of god (or nature) is to bring ruin upon he who committed the divergence. If one steals, is he not branded and punished as a thief? Of course, and the bible provides examples of this, as do the Scholastics. Of course, common sense would also tell anyone who wished to know that a thief is not likely to be hired for a productive job, or lead a productive lifestyle. A murderer can be submitted to the same scrutiny. No one wishes to associate with someone who has committed such a socially (and morally) impermissible act such as murder. The social (and moral) solution is restitution to the victim and punishment to the perpetrator. This is entirely consistent with natural law, but not all together consistent with pronounced law (legislative law). The same sort of scrutiny can be given to any morally or socially impermissible action. One does not simply ignore the commands of god, or the rules set forth by the existence of nature and society. Those that do are punished, as much by the legal authorities as by their own actions. How many rich thieves are there? They are certainly the exception to the rule, and not the rule itself. The same goes with rapists, murderers, and other evil men. Nature (or god) does not reward them in their lives with any sort of material wealth or livelihood. They are usually poor, pitiful wretches by the time that their iniquities might finally get the best of them.

The proponents of the Scholastic version of natural law espoused the doctrine of equality under the law (but not egalitarianism) as well. According to this doctrine, a king who murders is no better than a peasant who performs the same act. This has many obvious implications. People, according to reason and the Scholastics, are inherently unequal, but when it comes to actions that are wrong, they should be treated the same. This type of argument, espoused by Kant, is a surefire way to avoid the common rut hit by legal theorists of all types. If an action is wrong, for any reason, then it is wrong no matter who does it. Tax collectors take note.

Natural legal philosophy has been attacked viciously by the enemies of freedom and the enemies of religion, which are usually the same people. It is a fine philosophy, with a fine tradition. It was the primary legal theory for thousands of years, until quite recently, as far as history goes. To close, a quote from Aquinas would be appropriate. 

"It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old." 

-Saint Thomas Aquinas.

March 22, 2002