What is Natural Law? I was reading a post written in reply to my argument that there can be no liberty without religion. The author uses my post to ‘demonstrate’ how I contradict myself and to show I have no understanding of Natural Law, logic or reason. Sadly, this person firmly believes they are correct — as much so as I do. This creates an apparent impasse from which there might appear no escape save who can use force to ‘beat’ the other one down. Fortunately, this is not the case: there is a way out of this confrontation — for those who seek the truth, anyway. The essence of the problem here is one of fundamental misunderstand over the definition of Natural Law. Whether this misunderstanding is since or intentionally allowed, I do not know, nor am I qualified to pass judgment on that matter. Either way, asserting a false definition is lawlessness. The correct definition is known and can be learned, so when it is misused by someone claiming their perversion is the truth, it can be set straight by those whose true allegiance is not to personal or political desire, but to the truth. That is what I propose we do now: to set this matter straight by clarifying the definition of Natural Law.
Let’s start with the definition of Natural Law:
: a body of law or a specific principle held to be derived from nature and binding upon human society in the absence of or in addition to positive law.
Now, to those who understand logic and the English language, the meaning of this definition would seem self-evident: Natural Law is an inherent part of this universe which governs the behavior of humans living in a society. But there are those who balk at any suggestion of God or God’s hand in setting these laws. They will accept the ‘Natural Laws’ of physics, but not those of morality. Therefore, they seek to restrict the set of possibilities before entering into any debate over this matter, and the possibility of anything outside the material world is always excluded. This is fallacious reasoning, and I will write a post about it in the near future. But — for now — I accept their false assertions. Now let me show that I can still make my case — even when I am forced to play according to their rules.
By definition, anything that exists as a part of or which functions in this universe would be ‘Natural.’ In other words, is ‘naturally’ occurs as an inherent part of the universe’s existence. Now, whether the materialist likes it or not, there is much more to this universe than just matter. Therefore, it naturally follows that there are more than one set of laws in this universe. The laws governing physics apply to matter and even to energy and waves, but they do not govern mathematics and logic. In fact, mathematics and logic are on a higher level than the laws of physics. They are over the laws of physics. But the laws governing mathematics and logic exist as a natural part of this universe, therefore, there are Natural Laws governing mathematics and logic. The same applies to language and even economics.
Now, if there are Natural Laws governing mathematics, language, logic and physics, might it also follow that there are Natural Laws governing biological life? I think the Materialists admit to a ‘law of Nature.’ Is this not the Natural Law of biological life by another name? I submit it is. Now, are humans biological life? Again, I hope this is self-evident. So there is a Natural Law governing human life. And there is a Natural Law governing economics. But here is where we have to demonstrate that we actually understand these laws and can properly apply them. This is the point where the Materialist goes astray.
What is economics? Essentially, economics is a ‘science’ (application of logic) concerned with the rules which govern the way goods and services are produced, sold and bought. But what is production, selling and purchasing? It is human activity. Now, why don’t animals produce economics? What is it that makes humans different from all other known life forms? Well, what does the existence of a law of economics suggest? As with all law, it suggests there is a right and a wrong. Now, at this point, I do not care about what that right and wrong is. It does not matter. What matters is that we can deduce that, because economics exists, then ‘right and wrong’ exists — at least in some form.
Now, when it is placed in connection with human activity, the notion of right and wrong is defined as morality. That is the definition, and we just showed that morality exists as a Natural and inherent part of this universe. We have also shown that there is a Natural Law governing economics. Therefore, everyone who knows and understands the Natural Law of logic knows that it Naturally follows that there must be a Natural Law of morality. In fact, economics would be a sub-set of that Natural Law of morality. And, as an added bonus, we just discovered the difference between humans and animals: humans are subject to the laws of morality. In other words, they are moral agents whereas animals are not.
We have just shown that there is a Natural Law of Morality and that it exists as an inherent part of the universe. We even did it under the restrictive conditions placed upon me by those who wish to define the conditions of the discussion so that they must win the argument. But what follows next is the part that really bothers the Materialist. If this Natural Law governing morality is inherent as a Natural part of the universe, then that — by definition – makes morality a universal law. And if morality is a universal law, then it applies to all humans — even those who place themselves above it by denying God and putting themselves on His thrown.
You see, that is what this is really all about: it is not about whether or not Natural Law exists. Romans 1 and 2 clearly says we are all born with an innate sense of right and wrong. In other words, we are born knowing this moral law. It isn’t even about whether or not I know and understand the rules of logic. I just demonstrated that I do. No, what this is really all about is a rebellion against the Law Giver. Those who want to be the ones making the law simply cannot stand those of us who acknowledge and obey the Law Giver and His laws. They want to be the law giver. This is why they assert that the only law is positive law — or man-made law. But the moment they make that assertion — and they all do — they admit that they have renounced the use of reason and embraced the use of force. You see, logic alone is incapable of defining a universal set of moral laws, so the only way to enforce a positive law is with force. Positive law denies the existence of universal morality. It only recognizes the law of force. So to embrace positive law is to renounce the use of reason and embrace the use of force.
Now, I ask you, why would you listen to someone who is openly declaring to you that they are willing to renounce the use of reason in favor of the use of force? If you doubt this is what they are doing, go read the blog post and comments that motivated this post. Then ask yourself: am I as insulting to them as they are to me? Do I accuse them of wanting to kill me? These are called ad hominem attacks and they are all fallacious assertions. Fallacies are mistakes in the use of logic. So they are demonstrating they do not care about logic right there. How many times and how many ways do they have to show — through their actions — that they do not care about reason, only force? And what does force have to do with the truth? Doesn’t the truth stand for itself and on its own? Have I not just demonstrated that, and plying by their rules, no less?
I’ll leave it to you to decide, but choose wisely, please. One position is in line with Natural Law; the other is utter and complete lawlessness. One can allow for peaceful coexistence with others; the other demands the extermination of any and all who disagree. Look to the history of the 20th Century and ask who it was that murdered 150+ MILLION souls: those who believe in God, or those who deny God or His law exists? then decide where you stand.