What follows is a thirteen part series on the subject of Natural Law!
The doctrine of Natural Law argues that there is a law or rule of action inherent in the nature of things. For human beings, behaviour must be consonant with human nature, which is always held to be rational. In the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Natural Law is the result of divine providence being embossed on natural human reason. For him,
Natural Law is nothing other than the participation of eternal law in rational creatures.
It is possible to hold a minimal version of the doctrine of Natural Law within the context of a well-rounded theological ethic. However, the Thomist version of the doctrine, which is its most refined elucidation, leaves no room for confidence that adequate account has been given of either theological or empirical data. Natural Law strikes several problems of an epistemological nature. Further, lex naturae gives a poor explanation of human diversity unless its scope is so reduced as to make it a truism. Perhaps most significantly, Natural Law theory underplays the corruption of human reason by sin.
The doctrine of Natural Law has its origin in antiquity. The writings of Heraclitus and Plato reveal an understanding of the notion, but its clarification was left to Aristotle. In his Nicomachean Ethics he wrote:
The natural [law] is that which has the same validity everywhere and does not depend upon acceptance...Natural Laws are immutable and have the same validity everywhere (as fire burns both here and in Persia)
Aristotle drew the distinction between Natural Law, which is unchangeable and universal, and the variance of humanly-enacted laws. His primary concern was with biological phenomena, which led him to adopt a model where the Natural Law was analogous to fusiV - nature, or reality. Human beings are by nature rational; and the inner principle governing human life is reason.
5 comments:
Has it ever occurred to you that if Paul (who seems at very least to be conversant in Greek philosophy) says that God grafted the Gentiles into the natural olive branch "contrary to nature" (Romans 11:24), that he implicitly rules out 'natural law' from having any place in his ethic?
Because sometimes, even God uses things contrary to their nature - and in doing so, saves them!
Looking forward to seeing where you go with this. One relevant topic is the political implications of natural law.
Karl - sounds specious to me.
I ain't pushin of natural law but.
~
“ .. no room for confidence that adequate account has been given of either theological or empirical data .. “
Including that “theological data” (as if such data really exists) seem either mysteriously lost or discounted subjectively by believers faced with real life questions of attributing God’s agency to natural data (see e.g., Miner, M. H. and McKnight, J. (1999). “Religious Attributions: Situational Factors and Effects on Coping.,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(2), 274-287), showing that actively confessing Calvinists who say that God controls natural events (empirical data) cannot identify specific instances of God at work in the data-events of the natural world all around them, i.e. attribution fails despite theological-creedal insistence otherwise).
Following along as you have Aristotle set the table for Thomas ...
Cheers,
Jim
Hi Michael,
I look forward to this series and may even interact once I see where you are heading.
I am currently ploughing through David VanDrunen's Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought.
There is quite a deal of interest in 2K theology and the applicability of natural law in the civil kingdom amongst reformed scholars which no doubt you are aware of.
Cheers
David
Post a Comment