2. Natural Law as 'Science'

0:00Chapter 2 Natural Law as Science It is indeed puzzling that so many modern philosophers should sniff at the very term nature as an injection of mysticism and the supernatural. An apple, let fall, will drop to the ground. This we all observe and acknowledge to be in the nature of the apple, as well as the world in general. Two atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen will yield one molecule of water, behavior that is uniquely in the nature of hydrogen, oxygen and water. There is nothing arcane or mystical about such observations. Why then cavil at the concept of nature?

0:47The world, in fact, consists of a myriad number of observable things or entities. This is surely an observable fact. Since the world does not consist of one homogeneous thing or entity alone, it follows that each one of these different things possesses differing attributes, otherwise they would all be the same thing. But if A, B, C, etc. have different attributes, it follows immediately that they have different natures. It also follows that when these various things meet and interact, a specifically delimitable The observable and definable result will occur. In short, specific delimitable causes will have specific delimitable effects.

1:36The observable behavior of each of these entities is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of the interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law. What is mystical about that? In the field of purely physical laws, this concept will usually differ from modern positivistic terminology only on high philosophical levels. Applied to man, however, the concept is far more controversial. And yet, if apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being that cannot have one?

2:22And if man does have a nature, why cannot it too be open to rational observation and reflection? If all things have natures, then surely man's nature is open to inspection. The current brusque rejection of the concept of the nature of man is therefore arbitrary and a priori. One common flip criticism by opponents of natural law is, who is to establish the alleged Truths About Man. The answer is not who, but what, man's reason. Man's reason is objective, that is, it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer.

3:09Go thou and study and find out. It is as if one man were to assert that the nature of copper were open to rational investigation, and a critic were to challenge him to prove this immediately by setting forth on the spot all the laws that have been discovered about copper. Another common charge is that natural law theorists differ among themselves and that therefore all natural law theories must be discarded. This charge comes with peculiar ill grace when it comes, as it often does, from utilitarian and Economists. For economics has been a notoriously contentious science, and yet few people advocate tossing all economics, therefore, into the discard.

3:56Furthermore, difference of opinion is no excuse for discarding all sides to a dispute. The responsible person is the one who uses his reason to examine the various contentions and make up his own mind. He does not simply say, a priori, a plague on all your houses. The fact of man's reason does not mean that error is impossible. Even such hard sciences as physics and chemistry have had their errors and their fervent disputes. No man is omniscient or infallible. A law, by the way, of man's nature. The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, goodness is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature.

4:44Goodness is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes, The classical natural law doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. Why is the natural good? Because there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between and useless and serviceable beasts, for example, and the most empirical and rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural, or because nature is morally good, whatever that would mean.

5:30We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes In the case of man, the natural law ethics states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature. The natural law then elucidates what is best for man, what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a science of happiness, with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. In contrast, praxeology or economics, as well as the utilitarian philosophy with which this science has been closely allied, treat happiness in the purely formal sense as the fulfillment of those ends which people happen, for whatever reason, to place high on their scales of value.

6:34Satisfaction of those ends yields to man his utility or satisfaction or happiness. Value in the sense of valuation or utility is purely subjective and decided by each individual. This procedure is perfectly proper for the formal science of praxeology or economic theory, but not necessarily elsewhere. For in natural law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees. Value here is objective, determined by the natural law of man's being. And here, happiness for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense.

7:21As Father Keneally put it, this philosophy maintains that there is in fact an objective of Moral Order within the Range of Human Intelligence, to which human societies are bound in conscience to conform, and upon which the peace and happiness of personal, national and international life depend. And the eminent English jurist, Sir William Blackstone, summed up the natural law and its relation to human happiness as follows. This is the foundation of what we call ethics or natural law, demonstrating that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature, or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destruction of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.

8:19But using the terminology of natural law, psychologist Leonard Carmichael has indicated how an objective, absolute ethic can be established for man on scientific methods, based upon biological and psychological inquiry. Because man has an unchanging and an age-old genetically determined anatomical, physiological and Psychological Makeup. There is reason to believe that at least some of the values that he recognized as good or bad have been discovered or have emerged as human individuals have lived together for thousands of years in many societies. Is there any reason to suggest that these values, once identified and tested, may not be thought of as essentially fixed and unchanging?

9:10For example, the wanton murder of one adult by another for the purely personal amusement of the person committing the murder, once it is recognized as a general wrong, is likely always to be so recognized. Such a murder has disadvantageous individual and social effects. Or to take a milder example from aesthetics, man is always likely to recognize in a special One common philosophic objection to natural law ethics is that it confuses or identifies the realism of fact and value. For purposes of our brief discussion, John Wilde's reply will suffice.

10:01In answer we may point out that their natural law of view identifies value not with existence, but rather with the fulfillment of tendencies determined by the structure of the existent entity. Furthermore, it identifies evil not with non-existence, but rather with a mode of existence in which natural tendencies are thwarted and deprived of realization. The young plant, whose leaves are withering for lack of light, is not non-existent. It exists, but in an unhealthy or privative mode. The lame man is not non-existent. He exists, but with a natural power partially unrealized. This metaphysical objection is based upon the common assumption that existence is fully finished or complete.

10:52But what is good is the fulfillment of being. After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wilde asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics. Why are such principles felt to be binding on me? How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's Subjective Value Scale Because the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man, the values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency, and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action.

11:51David Hume is the philosopher supposed by modern philosophers to have effectively demolished the theory of natural law. Hume's demolition was two-pronged, the raising of the alleged fact-value dichotomy thus debarring the inference of value from fact, and his view that reason is and can only be a slave to the passions. In short, in contrast to the natural law view that man's reason can discover the proper ends for man to follow, Hume held that only the emotions can ultimately set man's ends, and that reason's place is as the technician and handmaiden to the emotions. Here Hume has been followed by modern social scientists since Max Weber.

12:42According to this view, people's emotions are assumed to be primary and unanalyzable givens. Professor Heselberg has shown, however, that Hume, in the course of his own discussions, was compelled to reintroduce a natural law conception into his social philosophy, and particularly into his theory of justice, thus illustrating the jibe of Étienne Gilson. The natural law always buries its undertakers. For Hume, in Hesselberg's words, recognized and accepted that the social order is an indispensable prerequisite to man's well-being and happiness, and that this is a statement of fact. The social order, therefore, must be maintained by man.

13:32Hesselberg continues, But a social order is not possible unless man is able to conceive conceive what it is and what its advantages are, and also conceive those norms of conduct which are necessary to its establishment and preservation, namely respect for another's person and for his rightful possessions, which is the substance of justice. But justice is the product of reason, not the passions. And justice is the necessary support of the social order, and the social order is necessary to Man's Well-Being and Happiness. If this is so, the norms of justice must control and regulate the passions, and not vice versa. Heselberg concludes that thus Hume's original primacy of the passions thesis is seen to be utterly untenable for his social and political theory, and he is compelled to reintroduce reason as a cognitive normative factor in and Human Social Relations.

14:37Indeed in discussing justice and the importance of the rights of private property, Hume was compelled to write that reason can establish such a social ethic. Nature provides a remedy in the judgment and understanding for what is irregular and uncommodious in the affections. In short, reason can be superior to the passions. We have seen from our discussion that the doctrine of natural law, the view that an objective ethics can be established through reason, has had to face two powerful groups of enemies in the modern world, both anxious to denigrate the power of man's reason to decide upon his destiny. These are the Fidaists who believe that ethics can only be given to man by supernatural revelation, and the skeptics who believe that man must take his ethics from arbitrary whim or emotion.

15:35We may sum up with Professor Grant's harsh but penetrating view of the strange contemporary alliance between those who doubt the capacity of human reason in the name of skepticism, probably scientific in origin, and those who denigrate its capacity in the name of revealed religion. It is only necessary to study the thought of Ockham to see how ancient this strange alliance is. For in Ockham can be seen how philosophic nominalism, unable to face the question of practical certainty, solves it by the arbitrary hypothesis of revelation. The will detached from the intellect, as it must be in a nominalism, can seek certainty only through such arbitrary hypotheses.

16:23The interesting fact, historically, is that these two anti-rationalist traditions, that of the liberal skeptic and the Protestant revelationist, should originally have come from two opposite views of man. The Protestant dependence upon revelation arose from a great pessimism about human nature. The immediately apprehended values of the liberal originate in a great optimism. Yet, after all, is not the dominating tradition in North America a Protestantism which has been transformed by pragmatic technology and liberal aspirations?