Natural Law and Legal Philosophy

This assignment delves into the concept of natural law within legal philosophy. It examines historical perspectives on natural law, including prominent thinkers like Finnis and Rommen. The discussion also encompasses critiques of natural law theory, such as those presented by Dyzenhaus. Further analysis explores the influence of natural law on contemporary legal systems and its relevance in areas like environmental law and human rights.

LEGAL THEORY

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................3
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
Natural law is a theory in which it is considered that every human being has some
inherent rights which is given by nature and god and they are understandable by every human
being as the are human reasons. Natural law was first noticed at the time of Greek philosophy
and it draw a logical conclusion by binding human being from moral behaviour which are made
by mankind and reality that is created by god. Natural law theory is applied in ethics, politics,
religious morality and in civil theory (Craig, 2012). This theory has seen many Changes in a
period of time, some things were added in it and some were eliminated from it because change is
another law of nature.
MAIN BODY
Natural law theory is a very old theory so from time to time it has seen some changes and
because of which it has many confusing meanings. It is basically a type of moral theory but also
considered as legal theory, but in depth their logical interpretation is different. In old time is was
considered that nature is different and law is different because law vary from country to country
but nature always remain same in the world (Wright, 2016). Because of this difference law of
nature is less obvious and more paradox. At that time it was noticed that natural justice can be
achieved through political justice, so it was concluded by some thinkers that to make a natural
law, correct political community should be chosen so they make a law that should be followed
by everyone. But some thinkers were not agree with it as they thought that best way cannot be
achieved by making a law. After this some theories suggest that universal law it something that
is not for one day or day, it is for eternal, it does not have a birth date and it does not have any
end This natural theory is completely different from science theory and should never be confused
with it. This theory can be divided in some parts, one of them is theory of morality (Tarlock,
2013). Moral theory focuses on truth-value and believe in acting according to general truth
which can be valid as a universal law and its main focus is on moral norms. Other part of natural
theory is related to its core thinking which is nature of world and nature of human being. A
rational nature of human being should be followed as a standard of moral behaviour should be
maintained by every human being (Sison, and Fontrodona, 2012). Another perception of natural
theory is that there is difference between notion of law and notion of morality. But there are
some situation in which morality does not work and law have higher authority as everything

cannot be decided by morality and its principals. Another view by some theorist is that in some
situations morals are considered more important than law as they more common in this world if
compared to law, which can be different and may change in short time period.
In jurisprudent it is explained that law is not something that can be 'created' , it is
something that can only be 'discovered'. The generate from a process consist of resolving conflict
and gradually added in the law after their evolution. It can only be decided by moral principles
but it has one big concern that nothing can be added, like in law, to it as it works through
involuntary system (Rommen, 2012). According to Aquinas natural law, the general principal of
nature of law states that good is to be done and bad should be avoided but the problem with this
thinking is that every human being has different perception so their 'good' mat be bad for other
person or other person's 'bad' may be 'good' for him. Because of complex human brain and
thinking it is difficult to follow this philosophy. In paradigmatic natural law stated that natural
law is given by god and it cannot be created by human being as law made by god has authority
over all human being so they are in no position to make law. In this law it is considered that there
is no need to teach any human being about this law as it is naturally known by all human being.
It also explain that good is ahead of right and right action is an action which respond to the good.
Their are many ways which are against the good and some of them can be formulated as general
rule. Another thinker of paradigmatic natural law states that law of nature is divine and all
human being are bound to follow them. According to him it is easy to know the basic of this law
and self preservations should be considered as fundamental good. It is necessary in natural law
that some things should be universally good and naturally fine but the point is that how can their
be anything that can be universally good (Pojanowski, 2015). Their are several answers for this
question, first is Hobbesian, in which it is stated that something is good if it is desired, wanted or
liked by in some suitable situation. It can be argued that desire of one person can go against
natural law theory because human has vary and too much desire. But Hobbes claim that human
nature have similar desires and their purpose can be same which can build correct rationality
around them. Aristotle does not agree with Hobbesian theory as he argued that good cannot be
ascertained by desire as something will be good for someone if it is completing them or
perfecting them (Milbank, 2012). Human being does not has everything, there are some things
that they want and there are something that they already have, so for a human being the thing
that complete them or make them is good for them. This theory is supported by Aquinas and

most of the people related to natural law tradition. Another person who gave important view on
this issue is Plato, he was completely disagree with subjective theory that desires are related to
good and things that complete someone is good. According to him universal good is something
that is related to possibility of human achievement as knowledge or beauty are good in
themselves. All of these answers have some problems an d none of them is perfect. In every
theory 'good' has different elements, like in Aquinas social life, knowledge and ration conduct is
considered as good. According to Grisez playful activities, justice, friend, religion etc. is
considered as good but in Chappell's view avoidance of pain, pleasure and achievements will be
called good (Llewellyn, 2016). So it can be analysed that every theory has their own definition of
good.
Gradually when the time changes people understand that law and regulations are
necessary as moral value depend on individual which always vary but law will be something that
has to followed by every individual as it is not depend on human nature. Theories given by all
thinks has some right parts and some wrong part, it cannot be said that a thinker is completely
wrong as they have added something to natural law theory. In hobbesian theory, it was stated that
people have same desires as they do not live in an isolated place, they have friends and families
so their wants will definitely match with others in society and through combined efforts rational
good can be attained (Lisska, 2012). Some part of this theory can be considered appropriate in
today's era, as it is true that when a human desire get fulfilled he will consider it good but
someone's good can be bad for other or may be morally incorrect as in case of terrorism they
think that they are doing good but it is not good according to majority of world and morally
incorrect. So this theory is not completely right and most of part is legally wrong in many
countries (Koskenniemi, 2011). According to Aristotle, something that complete a human or
make him perfect should be considered as good. Like of earlier theory some part of this thinking
is correct as human want to become perfect, they want to learns skills that make them good and
complete them but problem with this theory is no one can ever become perfect and nothing in
this world can be considered as complete or perfect which means nothing is good. This theory
cannot operate in current time as on the basis of this thinking no judge can ever give a correct
decision and it does not relate to legal system that operates in this world. Other thinner who gave
his opinion on this subject is Plato, he argued that possibilities of human achievement should be
considered as good, because knowledge or beauty etc. are good in themselves but chasing them

and achieving them ism good (Hensel, 2016). This theory is right about possibilities to attain
something as hope is always considered as good but in this era it is not the only criteria and
people does not consider hope as a practical concept.
In this era it is not possible for a single country to accept law of nature as legal law
because they have too many flaws and cannot be practised in any country. Law of nature is
already very confusing and it has many shortcomings because it was made a long time ago and
in recent era it has not seen much changes. Moral values and law are two completely different
things in current time as law is made by a country and it equal for everyone but morals differ
from person to person and they do not have any legal status. The law of nature is too general and
it does not know about most of the current values and ignore legal obligation. It do not consider
human nature, every human being is different but this law do not give importance to it and try to
fit every individual in same bracket (Ginsburg, 2012). It has some immoral outcome in terms of
business ethics and health ethics. Other significant issue with Nature law is that definition of
'nature' varies from person to person because of which meaning of morals also changes so this
law has no chance to be accepted in this era as it is impractical and very confusing. In ancient
time it was thought that god has made Law of nature but with time some changes have be added
to it, overall still its generation is considered as unrealistic and unrealistic things do not have
much space in current legal practising system. Two important thinker involve god in their theory
of this law which is unacceptable in most of the countries and completely inappropriate from
today's point of view. This law is not much influenced by human behaviour which depends on
the environment in which human being live, environment differs from places to places and
sometime completely opposite in two different countries (Finnis, 2011). So their cannot be
universal law that will be appropriate for the whole world as people have different priorities,
preferences and needs. Nature law talks about good but in current law system there is no good or
bad, in law things are legal and illegal. This law strongly argue to accept what is present and
given by nature and consider it best for human being ,may be a brain tumour, first of all this is
completely unrelated to current legal system and it is not morally correct also. Aquinas kept no
room for consequentialism, situation-ism and relativism which is considered as very significant
factor in present practising law as in this world situations changes from time to time and from
places to places, it varies many time and relates with each other sometime (Dyzenhaus, 2012.).
Those who have made this law and added something from it has very limited understanding of

this world as no one understand this universal completely, they made a law on basis of their
understanding which is unacceptable in current practising law as it consider whole territory at the
time of formation of law and made necessary changes whenever needed because with time and
situation things changes so law should also be changed according to it. Law should always be
clearly stated and necessary changes should be done in it from time to time, it should have
different provision for different situations as this world is complex and single rule does not work
in it.
CONCLUSION
From above information it can be concluded that natural law is very ancient law in which
thinkers like Aristotle and Plato has given their views. This law points out as what should be
considered as good and how right can be done. Some thinkers argued that this law is made by
god so everyone should follow it and it must be known to everyone which is considered as
impractical in this era. If first appeared in Greek philosophy and than many thinkers gave their
views on it. Sometime natural law get confused with common law but they are different. This
ideology focus on to live good and avoid doing bad. Some part of it is related to universal good
which is difficult to find as human being has different values and preferences so one thing that is
good for an individual can be bad for another. In today's legal system it is not possible to accept
any principal of natural law as this law is self confused and most of its work is impractical for
current law. A major part of this law is morals which do not have any legal existence in this era
and it changes from places to places and from time to time.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Craig, P., 2012. Administrative law in the Anglo-American tradition. The SAGE Handbook of
Public Administration, p.333.
Dyzenhaus, D., 2012. Legality Without the Rule of Law? Scott Shapiro on Wicked Legal
Systems. The Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 25(01), pp.183-200.
Finnis, J., 2011. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
Ginsburg, T., 2012. Constitutionalism: East Asian Antecedents. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 88, p.11.
Hensel, H.M., 2016. Theocentric Natural Law and Just War Doctrine.". The Legitimate Use of
Military Force: The Just War Tradition and the Customary Law of Armed Conflict,
pp.5-27.
Koskenniemi, M., 2011. Empire and international law: The real Spanish contribution. University
of Toronto Law Journal, 61(1), pp.1-36.
Lisska, A.J., 2012. Natural Law and the Roman Catholic Tradition: The Importance of
Philosophical Realism. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71(4), pp.745-
786.
Llewellyn, K.N., 2016. The common law tradition: Deciding appeals (Vol. 16). Quid Pro Books.
Milbank, J., 2012. Against human rights: Liberty in the Western tradition. Oxford Journal of
Law and Religion, 1(1), pp.203-234.
Pojanowski, J.A., 2015. Redrawing the Dividing Lines Between Natural Law and Positivism (s).
Va. L. Rev., 101, p.1023.
Rommen, H.A., 2012. The Natural Law. Liberty Fund.
Sison, A.J.G. and Fontrodona, J., 2012. The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-
Thomistic tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), pp.211-246.
Tarlock, D., 2013. Why There Should Be No Restatement of Environmental Law. Brook. L.
Rev., 79, p.663.
Wright, B.F., 2016. American Interpretations of Natural Law: A Study in the History of Political
Thought. Transaction Publishers.

Online:
Christian Moral Argument and Natural Law "Faith and Reason" or "Faith vs. Reason". 2015.
[Online]. Available
through:<http://www.nathaniel.org.nz/component/content/article/13-bioethical-issues/
what-is-bioethics/128-christian-moral-argument-and-natural-law-qfaith-and-reasonq-or-
qfaith-vs-reasonq>. {Accessed on 27th May 2017}.