Natural Law Theory and Neo-Natural Law Theory Natural Law Theory starts in the belief that there is an order to the universe. This ordering of the universe leads to laws that are natural; things have a purpose. The principles of law are an inherent part of nature. Even without the human capacity for reason, the principles of law would exist (Perlman). From a moral perspective, natural law is an affirmational objectivism, meaning that there can be a reasonable validity to a moral position. As an example, natural law theory would hold, the purpose of sexual functioning in human beings is procreation. Any type of sexual functioning outside of that purpose (you can use your imagination) is immoral, because it is unnatural (“Inspired” by Aquinas
…show more content…
Fuller further develops this functional understanding, that is neo-natural law. Fullers argument is that a system of law without formal justice, and the rule of law, would be impossible. Fuller 's argument does not fully embrace Aquinas ' standard that an unjust law, is not law it all. Instead, Fuller states that you can still have a legal system with some laws that are unjust, but the system, viewed in entirety, is still just (Fuller 11). Fuller furthers the argument in The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, where he explains that the judiciary is independent, at least in our system, from other parts of the government. Because of this, judges can do their work within the functioning principles of law. These principles, for example Constitutional 5th and 14th amendment rights principles, can ensure that the functionality of the system of law is consistently enforced, even when certain laws themselves are unjust (e.g. “taking” clause of the Constitution, allowing government to take a person 's privately owned property for the “good” of society) (Fuller 41-42). Natural law theory, and by association, neo-natural law theory appeal to the divine1 as the moral basis for law. The moral appeal is that, all things which are not man-made ( e.g. flora and fauna), have a function and a purpose. The flourishing of these things is in the realization of that function or purpose. For human beings, our purpose is to live a flourishing life in …show more content…
As explained in the handout from lecture, it is a problem of purpose and teleology (Perlman). If the original purpose of something is not being utilized in that way, does it make it immoral or unnatural? Of course not. Using the example in the handout, we have an appendix, the purpose of which was to digest bones. The appendix has atrophied, and is no longer used for that purpose. In function, it is useless. Does this evolution, from the originally intended purpose of the appendix, necessarily entail that it is immoral or unnatural? Definitely not (Perlman). To extend the problems further, how is it that we make the decisions of what is morally praiseworthy? Natural law theory has taken a certain set of human traits such as, a desire to help people, or a necessity to be humble, and made these traits good. It is pretty easy to point out that a desire to not help certain people, or a necessity to speak your opinion, are equally powerful human traits that are not necessarily considered morally right. It is very doubtful that a principle of morality can be inferred from characteristically human
Fuller further develops this functional understanding, that is neo-natural law. Fullers argument is that a system of law without formal justice, and the rule of law, would be impossible. Fuller 's argument does not fully embrace Aquinas ' standard that an unjust law, is not law it all. Instead, Fuller states that you can still have a legal system with some laws that are unjust, but the system, viewed in entirety, is still just (Fuller 11). Fuller furthers the argument in The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, where he explains that the judiciary is independent, at least in our system, from other parts of the government. Because of this, judges can do their work within the functioning principles of law. These principles, for example Constitutional 5th and 14th amendment rights principles, can ensure that the functionality of the system of law is consistently enforced, even when certain laws themselves are unjust (e.g. “taking” clause of the Constitution, allowing government to take a person 's privately owned property for the “good” of society) (Fuller 41-42). Natural law theory, and by association, neo-natural law theory appeal to the divine1 as the moral basis for law. The moral appeal is that, all things which are not man-made ( e.g. flora and fauna), have a function and a purpose. The flourishing of these things is in the realization of that function or purpose. For human beings, our purpose is to live a flourishing life in …show more content…
As explained in the handout from lecture, it is a problem of purpose and teleology (Perlman). If the original purpose of something is not being utilized in that way, does it make it immoral or unnatural? Of course not. Using the example in the handout, we have an appendix, the purpose of which was to digest bones. The appendix has atrophied, and is no longer used for that purpose. In function, it is useless. Does this evolution, from the originally intended purpose of the appendix, necessarily entail that it is immoral or unnatural? Definitely not (Perlman). To extend the problems further, how is it that we make the decisions of what is morally praiseworthy? Natural law theory has taken a certain set of human traits such as, a desire to help people, or a necessity to be humble, and made these traits good. It is pretty easy to point out that a desire to not help certain people, or a necessity to speak your opinion, are equally powerful human traits that are not necessarily considered morally right. It is very doubtful that a principle of morality can be inferred from characteristically human