Natural Law - How do we know?

Here's the next natural law essay.  Open to critique as always.

NATURAL LAW

How do we Know?

Last time, we left off wondering just how it is that we can know that there is a
natural law and what it may entail. This is an enormously important question since many
people deny not only the specific content of the natural law but also its very existence.

Main Objections

Ever since the dawn of recorded philosophy, the primary objection to the
existence of a universal natural law has been the differences between the codes of law and
moral standards of different cultures. This was first articulated by the ancient Greek
sophists who argued that the differences in laws and morals between the various city-
states (for example, the democracy of Athens vs. the totalitarian Sparta), precluded any
possibility of an objective and universal morality.
The other significant objection is simply that the many proponents of natural law
have been unable to agree on its specific content, leading to the conclusion that even if
there is a natural law, its content is unknowable to human reason.
These are powerful objections and have to be dealt with. How shall we do this?
.

Universal Principles, Particular Expressions

If you remember the last article, we touched on the fact that the basic and
universal principles of the natural law can be applied in different ways when we get down
to the particular situations of our daily lives. The same thing applies on a larger scale to
cultures. Just as our own circumstances can affect how we apply the natural law, so
various circumstances such as geography, climate, custom and technology can affect how
different cultures in different times and places how those cultures understand and apply
the natural law.
For example, whereas theft is universally proscribed by the natural law, the
availability of certain resources could affect how this particular crime is punished. For
example, a desert tribe is likely to treat the theft of water very harshly due to its scarcity.
Conversely, a tropical tribe may treat it less harshly since it is readily available. In fact,
theft of water likely would not even exist among them. However, a different tropical
tribe may come to treat water with a deep religious significance, treating it as a life-giver
or even a creator (I don’ t know if this has ever happened, this is just a thought
experiment). This tribe would treat the theft of water or perhaps specific reserves of
water very seriously indeed but for very different reasons than our fictional desert tribe
would.
Respect for human life is another universal principle of the natural law.
Normally, this is codified in law with injunctions against murder. However, it is
interesting to note that often certain classes of people, such as slaves are often excluded

from a given society. In such societies, it may not be considered murder for a person to
kill his own slave. It is not that the society does not respect human life but rather that it
fails to recognize certain classes of people as human and worthy of respect and protection
under the law.
This principle has other applications as well. In India for instance, the eating of
certain animals is prohibited because they believe that those animals may harbor the
reincarnated spirit of their ancestors.
Another more modern example demonstrates how technology has affected our
application and consideration of the principles of theft and also the rights of people to be
rewarded for their work. The example I have in mind concerns the way that
developments in digital technology have affected the transmission and sharing of music,
books and movies.
Most people will remember the battles surrounding Napster, Limewire and other
music sharing services of several years ago, as well as the constant campaigns against
digital piracy. Studios complained of lost profits and artists that their work was being
distributed and manipulated without any consent on their part. People who engaged in
these activities argued that they were simply sharing music or making copies and new
versions of different media solely to amuse themselves and others. After all, no one ever
had a problem with making copies of albums or recording TV shows with cassette and
VHS tapes.
The difference of course is the significant change in technology. Using the old
methods, copies were relatively expensive, difficult and time consuming to make, as well
as being of lower quality than the original. With digital technology, making and sharing
almost exact copies of different media became fast, simple and cheap. While the
fundamental actions of recording and sharing media remained the same, the technology
change forced a reevaluation of how these activities affected the creators of the various
movies, books and music that could now be transmitted almost instantly around the
world.
None of this should be taken to mean that all applications of natural law principles
are equally legitimate or legitimate at all so long as one can articulate the reasons for the
particular application. As we shall see, it is always possible to interpret a principle in way
that either contradicts itself, or more commonly, another, more fundamental principle.
Returning to Sparta, we can see a very clear of this kind of misapplication of a
natural law, in this case, the principle that we should seek the good of the community of
which we are a part. Believing that the communal good relied largely on the ability of the
community to defend itself from invasion, Spartan society became focused on the
development of physical prowess to the exclusion of all else. They carried this so far that
if children, even infants showed any sign of weakness, they would be left to die. While
the good of the community is important it should be clear that the Spartans pursued this
good at the expense of the greater good of respect for human life, without which there is
no community to defend.

Opposing Versions

The other significant objection to the existence of the natural law is simply that
many different versions of it exist. Much like arguments against the existence of God,

the multiplicity of views is taken as evidence that there is no such thing as natural law or
that if there is, it is unknowable.
The clearest modern examples of different and even opposing views of natural law
lie in the battle over the meaning of human sexuality and the respect of human life. At
first, it may seem like this fight is not a fight between different versions of natural law.
This is for two reasons. The first is that the views are so incredibly different and the
second is that only one side actually claims the term natural law. The other side of these
debates uses the term human or civil rights. However, while superficially different, these
alternative terms both rest on the notion that are certain universal principles that should
govern human behavior and even legislation in the public square. One revolves primarily
around the existence of a natural order to which we ought to conform and the other
around the principle that it is our ability to choose that defines us. In either case we are
dealing with opposing views of human nature, of what it means to be human. How can
we be sure which is correct? To explore this, we’ ll use the modern battles over abortion
and homosexual sex/marriage as test cases.
A first principle that everyone can agree on is that we all seek fulfillment. What is
more, we can agree that should seek our greatest fulfillment. Now, regardless of what we
believe that fulfillment to consist in, an undeniable prerequisite of reaching or even
seeking that fulfillment is being alive to do so. Therefore, it is obvious even at this early
stage that abortion, as the ending of a human life, violates this first principle.
Homosexual sex (and homosexual “ marriage” is similar in that it is a sexual act that by its
very nature cannot result in the birth of new life, the very purpose of the sexual act in the
first place.
There are other indicators as well. Abortion, for example has well documented
negative effects on women’ s mental health afterwards. There are also strong ties between
abortion and breast cancer, the link being that the interruption of the body’ s natural
development during pregnancy results in a flood of hormones that the body no longer has
to handle.
In the matter of homosexual sex, it is well documented that diseases are more
easily transmitted, suicide rates are higher among the homosexual population and certain
physical injuries may result as well. It is also common knowledge that homosexual
relationships are generally more unstable than traditional relationships. All of these are
indicators that homosexual relationships are not conducive to the best fulfillment of
human life and are therefore contrary to the natural law. This also points to the answer to
out initial question of how we can know that there is any such thing as natural law? The
answer is simply that there are certain principles that if followed will lead to the highest
fulfillment of human life. Conversely, we see that there are certain actions that lead us
away from that fulfillment.
So, if all of these different objections are so easily dealt with why is it that so
many people have such a hard time recognizing the natural law and adhering to it? We
will look at this question next time.