Skip to main content

Natural Law and Natural Rights


By James A. Donald




Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.


Natural law has objective, external existence. It follows from the ESS (evolutionary stable strategy) for the use of force that is natural for humans and similar animals. The ability to make moral judgments, the capacity to know good and evil, has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells me when I am standing on the edge of a cliff, so the capacity to know good and evil tells me if my companions are liable to cut my throat. It evolved in the same way, for the same straightforward and uncomplicated reasons, as our ability to throw rocks accurately.


Natural law is not some far away and long ago golden age myth imagined by Locke three hundred years ago, but a real and potent force in today's world, which still today forcibly constrains the lawless arrogance of government officials, as it did in Dade county very recently.

The opponents of natural rights often complain that the advocates of natural rights are not logically consistent, because we continually shift between inequivalent definitions of natural law. They gleefully manufacture long lists of “logical contradictions”. Indeed, the definitions we use are not logically equivalent, but because of the nature of man and the nature of the world, they are substantially equivalent in practice.



These complaints by the opponents of natural rights are trivial hair splitting, and pointless legalistic logic chopping. It is easy to imagine in principle a world where these definitions were not equivalent. If humans were intelligent bees, rather than intelligent apes, these definitions would not be equivalent, and the concept of natural law would be trivial or meaningless, but we are what we are and the world is what it is, and these definitions, the definitions of natural law, are equivalent, not by some proof of pure reason, but by history, experience, economics, and observation.



Hobbes Criticism of natural law

The existence and force of natural law has been continually disputed by those who claim that the state should exercise limitless power over individuals.


Early in the seventeenth century Thomas Hobbes argued that the nature of man was not such that one could deduce natural law from it, or rather he argued that the natural law so deduced placed no important limits on the power of the ruler to do as he pleased, to remake society as he wished, that social order was purely a creation of state power.

Hobbes claimed that in a state of nature, it is a war of all against all, and life is “poor, solitary, nasty, brutish, and short”. This of course is a direct contradiction of the usual natural law argument that man is a social animal, adapted by nature to live mostly peaceably with his fellow men, and do business with them quietly.


Therefore, Hobbes argued, the state is entitled to unlimited power, and right is whatever the state, through its laws, says is right, and wrong whatever the state says is wrong. An “unjust law” is a contradiction in terms because the will of the state is itself the standard of justice, thus the ruler can do no wrong. The ruler is answerable to God, but everyone else is answerable only to the ruler.

Hobbes saw rights as a creation of state power: Therefore, in order that we might have more and better rights, state power should be as absolute and total as possible. The state should pervade and dominate every relationship in order to provide everyone with justice and rights, and suppress any form of association that it does not create and control, and the state should silence any criticism of its absolute power (so that we might be more free).


“Another infirmity of a Commonwealth is the immoderate greatness of a town, [...] also the great number of corporations, which are as it were many lesser Commonwealths in the bowels of a greater, like worms in the entrails of a natural man. To which may be added, liberty of disputing against absolute power by pretenders to political prudence; which though bred for the most part in the lees of the people, yet animated by false doctrines are perpetually meddling with the fundamental laws, to the molestation of the Commonwealth, like the little worms which physicians call ascarides.”
Your can read the full article at http://jim.com/rights.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two Tales, Two Leaders - PART 1

Man has dual nature; he is both his own person and a member of his country. On the one hand, the law must protect the individual from the injustices of the multitude.  History has shown how individuals fall prey to mass perversity, their crime being simply a refusal to conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the majority. Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance, 1997., Page 63. The value system and ethical code therefore determine the success or failure of corrective measures. If the value system is wrong, corrective measures will not be productive or will be only slightly productive. When the value system motivates, very little corrective measures are needed. Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, 1970., Pages 172-173. Introduction Malaysia is our motherland. We love our country. This country has so much of wealth. Even though, Malaysia has agonized considerably in past three decades because of the malpractices of the corrupted characters but she is never fail t...

Brexit: A lesson for Malaysians

Yesterday, Britons through a referendum made a decision to leave European Union. The ruling Conservative Party divided on this referendum and David Cameron in favour of ‘Remain’ was defeated outright. Even though he is disagreed with the decision of Britons, he announced that he is resigning from his premiership in respect of people’s decision. We can expect in a mature democracy country like United Kingdom this is vastly anticipated to be transpired.   A few days ago, the current Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption of Commission made a statement that he is stepping down from his position and there are some rumours indicating that a few prominent officers from the said Commission will either resign or retire. It’s very eccentric news for Malaysians as it will have a profound impact on bribery and corruption issues in Malaysia as a whole. Recently, the results of two by elections were won by Barisan Nasional, the ruling party of Malaysia. Many promises had been...

An Open Letter to Ayahanda Tun - PART 3

For me, to say I want to go to sleep and retire and prepare for my afterlife, I think that is very selfish. Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, The Straits Times – 22 January 2017. This statement is the reflection of ayahanda Tun’s true character. For many of us, he is father of this nation. His love for this nation is unprecedented. Even though he was retired in 2003 but made a comeback in 2018 as the seventh Prime Minster of Malaysia at the age of 93 years. He made a history. At this twilight age, most people would have a ‘quite’ life but not ayahanda.   The biggest question is why ayahanda had to return to active in politics at this age to ‘save’ Malaysia. What are the factors which have triggered him to take such a drastic decision? At that time, Malaysia’s reputation was at the stake because of the kleptocratic regime. In addition, the economic, social and political factors had triggered him to make a comeback. But, the main focal point of his return is the damaged r...