Natural Law leads man to his purpose!

Natural Law is not an easy concept to explain (believe me), though on the surface it appears easy to understand. Natural Law is, at first glance,  that law which seems common to all people. Prohibitions on murder, stealing, and adultery are among the most commonly cited. I have often asked the question: what are the natural laws? Where can I find a list? I have yet to find one. So how do we define the laws of a higher moral code? This has proven difficult to really set specific boundaries for this type of law and, it seems to me, for good reason. The more general it is the more universal it stays, acting more as a guide. The more specific it becomes the less universal it will be and the more constricting it becomes, a kind of bondage (slavery), preventing even right behavior. In this sense law tends to become the weapon of tyranny and greed, but the natural use of this kind of law will result in slavery none the less. It is punitive (caused by the sinful nature of mankind) and vengeful (caused by desire for self-preservation and our sense of "fairness", that is, an eye for an eye) rather than reconciliatory, always bringing accusations (encouraging men to be adversaries), always seeking the greatest possible punishment (either as deterrent or as vengeance). In stark contrast to this, the universal natural law absolutely requires a universal cooperation between all men (remaining for us only a potential), something that we have never seen before but know is inevitable (a hope for peace that all men share regardless of culture). I think most people feel we must either accomplish this state of human existence or pass into an obscure extinction. And now the weaponized technologies we have developed make it even more pressing.

We assume that everyone knows not to do these things (murder, adultery, theft, etc...), whether they have been told or not. But is natural moral law really common? Does everyone instinctively know? Where does it come from? How do we define it beyond just somehow "knowing" right from wrong? Regardless of whether or not natural law is common to all CULTURES I believe it is common to all PEOPLE. I say "people" because I do not believe that cultural norms necessarily reflect natural law. Culture tends to reflect political and socio-economic necessities, like slavery, conscription and even social classes which better reflect the worst part of humanity such as our fears and greedy desires. In my opinion, many cultures have norms that bristle against the natural state of an mankind (against natural law itself) further complicating the matter, especially when trying to find out what we should include under the heading "natural law" or "natural moral law". So we tend to see natural law from this complex cultural perspective, convincing us that it is relativistic rather than absolute. While we should not exclude the use of culture or social customs from identifying natural law code it does complicate our endeavor. At any rate, I believe that we should attempt at least a basic understanding of what we mean when we talk about natural law. Why should we consider it absolute? And if we cannot get to clear definitions, perhaps a general conceptual view is more efficient, pointing us (me) in the right direction.

When discussing "natural" law, two kinds of law automatically come to mind (at least for me) that are easy to confuse. Both proceed from nature and we are naturally subject (subjected) to both so the confusion between the two is inevitable.

1. scientific laws of nature: natural principles that govern existence, being and physical interactions. Included in this category would be animal instinct. In a sense, fate!
2. natural [moral] law (higher law): a natural or common moral code that is coercive enough to govern fate for the good of the system.

A scientific law is something that simply must be (a kind of divine providence or fate, like billiard balls slamming into each other on a pool table), as a regulator of what exists and how what exists interacts with itself. These are the principles we can measure and predict, theorize and test. Active participation is not necessarily required because it is the way it is. The inevitable motions of the universe. Now, if laws are principles that are set (cannot be changed) we might ask whether or not they can be avoided or overcome (overcoming/avoiding fate?). Obviously, they cannot be changed outright. No one can walk through walls, I cannot become reptilian and the earth will not suddenly lose its gravitational force (what appears to be eternal stability).  But some certainly can be avoided or overcome, without changing them. When we hop on an airplane we are overcoming gravity (a scientific principle/law). We know that gravity is still there (believe me when I say I am acutely aware of it at 30,000 ft), still operating, we just overcome it by technology. By taking hormone pills (birth-control) we can avoid or interrupt the natural process of reproduction. I think this ability to avoid certain laws allows us to see how the scientific laws of nature provide us with some basis for moral law by asking one very basic question: Is it right (in such and such an instance) to avert the uninterrupted fate of the laws of nature? Really this is what we are hashing out at this point in human history. The most basic scientific laws of nature (biological heredity, chemistry, physics and mathematics to name a few) then provide the foundation from which natural law (a moral code) can be drawn.  This predictable structure creates both a factual reality and "norms" (statistical means) that allow us to ask specific questions about our behavior and actions with respect to the world around us. Moral code can then be derived from what is or appears to be absolute reality and natural norm.

Being able to extrapolate moral code from factual reality requires the ability to reason. Human reason then, with respect to a basic moral code, enables us to find the right moral action through our observations of nature, and this depends on discerning the natural principles/cycles/norms. Reason (and understanding) gives us the unique ability to recognize what is going right or what is going wrong not just with ourselves, but in our environment and in our communities as well. Reason is our way of monitoring and predicting the world around us. This is why we are so curious, wanting to learn as much about our world as possible, to better recognize wrong natures when we encounter them and then find solutions if we can. Consider the following example. Most people are heterosexual for the purpose of sexual reproduction, continuation of life. This is certainly a natural scientific principle that drives the propagation of a species and even the evolutionary process. Is it then morally wrong to be homosexual? While this question may invoke strong opinions and feelings from both sides this law of nature is undoubtedly the reason an argument exists in the first place. The argument reasons: Males and females exist among our species with very few exceptions. Males and females are supposed to produce offspring (heterosexual relationships). That is why males and females exist (propagation of the species and the evolutionary process). Further, human society has evolved from this basic family unit (male, female, and child) which gives the natural moral law a way to flourish, being nourished and exercised by parental affection, education and training. Therefore homosexual relationships are sexually and socially deviant (compared to our observations of nature) life choices that may undermine human society as a whole. And aberrations being found in nature (homosexual behaviors in other species) does not negate the argument because the argument is based on the observed facts of nature (male and female) and the mean behavior (sexual attraction and reproduction between the two sexes) within the human species. Likewise, promiscuity outside of a committed marriage relationship and adultery are also destructive to the proper development of the kind of morality that will lead to a virtuous society BECAUSE they undermine the family. The Apostle Paul makes an argument with a similar line of reasoning in the book of Romans.

Rom 1:18-20  For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  (19)  because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them.  (20)  For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. 24-27  Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  (25)  For they changed the truth of God into a lie, and they worshiped and served the created thing more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.  (26)  For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.  (27)  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.

Could we apply this same line of reasoning to immunizations? Or birth-control? Is it wrong for me to stop the biological process of sexual reproduction (as a female) by taking birth control pills? What about surgically altering my sex (from male to female)? All of these questions are tied to this idea of a natural moral law. The natural scientific laws have laid a basis for moral judgment (the conscience). Nature itself gives us our beginning definitions for what is moral and what is not. Obviously we reason differently about various scenarios but I think we still start from the same basic concept of deriving moral code from nature regardless of what we ultimately decide about the scenario itself. But why would we even ask the question? I mean, why consider whether or not an action is right or wrong in the first place? Why do we care? Reason alone is not enough to make us question whether or not an action is moral. There is something in us that gives us pause. This "something" is the conscience! It springs from our nature, just as we have the ability to reason (and understand), we have the ability to judge our choices and actions, to question whether or not we are doing the right thing and to try and predict beneficial and harmful outcomes. This absolutely sets us apart from the other species, and makes us something of a guardian (being responsible for our actions), if you will, over the rest of the natural world. We have the ability to recognize a problem, formulate a solution and judge the effectiveness and morality of that solution. We can overcome a fate that would have been if everything were left as it is, to postpone fate or even change fate/destiny working within the framework of the laws of nature. What other species has this ability to the degree that we do? None that I know of. And to what end/purpose do we have this ability? Is it just for our own personal pleasure and life preservation or could there be a larger picture we are missing? Our natural abilities absolutely enable us to act as guardians/protectors of the natural world, NOT as the top predator, as some have so strongly encouraged in us. I think we can begin to see a truly great purpose for human existence. One that integrates the spiritual and natural elements of our nature as humans. I believe that it is our niche in the natural world (something we have had a difficult time discovering and defining for ourselves)! But a problem has recently emerged that is threatening to undermine the ties between natural moral law and the laws of nature. Because our technology is, for the first time in human history, allowing us to avert or manipulate more and more the physical laws of nature it is challenging our concepts about how we interact with the physical laws of nature, and consequently, our moral framework. How do we respond? So far our response as a species has been utter confusion!

This brings us to the larger picture. What we might call governance of nature. This governance refers to a force that is greater than we are compelling us to be something more/different than other animals, creating within us the desire to fulfill our own fate/destiny/purpose (pushing us to fill this new niche) as governors of the earth. Compelling us to be moral creatures, convincing us of a moral code that transcends the laws of nature, that has anchored itself in those absolute physical laws. Here is where the religious component of natural moral law affects reaction to secular relativistic views of law and individual freedom. Those who feel that our place in the natural world is governed, not by the consent of the people nor by an elite upper class, but by a force (divine) greater than the processes of nature working through time. Better described perhaps as a will that directs us without altering our ability to choose (which is the key to claiming our purpose), to which we must humbly submit ourselves or continue to be hopelessly lost. This divine will is seen by the religious mind as the organizing principle that orders the universe as it is, that establishes laws and sets boundaries. And to make moral decisions that seem to work against the divine will or treat its design for us with apathy or disdain is seen as suicidal (called sin). Dont get me wrong. Religious folk have made some very poor decisions with respect to following the divine will. I think there is a better way and I think in order for us to find that way we have to better define our place as a human species. As religious, moral, rational creatures who care about the future of this planet and mans place in it. We evolve here, we live here, we die here, we belong here and our niche is unique to our species alone. Making laws that force people to behave morally does not work, natural moral law is something that is chosen individually and preserved socially and culturally. And I think this concept of how far off the mark we are is really the central message of Christianity. That is, recociliation with God and men and the choice to live a life devoted to right natural order and spiritual law (which is repentance from sin). Ponder this. If the greatest law is reconciliatory, what happens when party (the offender) refuses to reconcile?

I think natural moral law is BOTH our religious duty AND our natural duty that informs our social duty. It finds the delicate path between individual freedom and social responsibility. To ignore it will ultimately doom our species to extinction because we will have removed ourselves from the niche

So if we were to put together a list what might it look like?

1. Obey and trust the divine law-giver
2. seek to understand the natural world and seek to preserve life according to this order
3. obey and trust parents and those who are wiser than you
4. respect life (even your own) and seek its good
5. live in moderation and humility and always practice being content with what you have
6. in everything maximize the benefit to others and to the natural environment
7. live peacefully with all men and seek and obey the counsel of the wise in resolving a dispute and never hold a grudge if it does not go your way
8. give to those in need and receive what is given to you when you are in need, never take advantage of this system
9. if you do wrong, repent and make it right to the best of your ability