The article is written by Shriya Singh. It discusses in detail about natural law and the origin of the theory, as well as the contributions of various thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc. It further discusses the notion of natural law prevalent during the medieval period, the Renaissance period, and during the 19th and 20th centuries. Furthermore, the ideologies of Fuller, Hart, Finnis, and Murphy have been discussed in great depth.

Introduction

According to natural law, a society that is equitable should be built around the universal moral principles that have always been a part of civilization. Natural law in and of itself is not taught to humans; rather, we “discover” it by continuously choosing right or good over wrong or evil. Some schools of thought hold that an ethereal presence transmits natural law to humanity.

Everyone has the same rights under the principle of natural law, and others cannot deny these rights to anyone, regardless of their culture, religion, or system of government or politics. However, human rights are not the same as birthrights assigned to the human race under natural law; human rights are subject to change and vary based on societal perspectives. Regarding what exactly constitutes natural law, there is no universal agreement. The word “natural law” in jurisprudence refers to those laws and principles that are believed to have come from a higher authority than any political or material authority. 

In essence, the a priori method differs from the empirical method in that the former accepts facts or conclusions about a subject without requiring further research, observation, or analysis, whereas the latter, also known as the a posteriori approach, looks for causes and rationale related to the subject. It stands for the morally-based physical law of nature, which is applicable everywhere and in all contexts. It has frequently been used, depending on the circumstances, to either support a change or uphold the status quo. For instance, Thomas Hobbes employed natural law to uphold the status quo in society, while Locke utilized it as a means of change. Natural law is the fundamental foundation for the ideas of “due process” in the United States and England, as well as the “rule of law” in India. Natural law is timeless and unchangeable because it was formed at the beginning of time and is uncreated. A human being did not create natural law; he simply discovered it. Thus, natural law is not subject to outside enforcement. 

In a way, natural law is a greater kind of law because it is not established by legislation but rather results from the teachings of philosophers, prophets, saints, and others. Let us delve deeper into it.

What is Natural Law

Natural law has been understood and defined in a variety of ways. In its broadest meaning, natural law has developed in response to the demands of a given civilization and the efforts of its legal academics. This has been the case whether natural law is expressed as jus naturale, the law of nature, the law of reason, lex naturalis, lex aeterna, natural justice, or due process of law. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that natural law endures as a legal theory, even when the specific framework that a community creates may be rejected by later generations. Natural law presumptions have frequently changed in tandem with legal development periods. An antiquated natural law system quickly becomes ineffective when new legal concepts are urgently needed. 

The American Constitution is a great source of natural law. The idea of Constitutional law has already undergone multiple phases of evolution and appears to be entering a new phase. The term “natural law” means “the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.”  This definition aims to explain not only what the law is objectively in and of itself but also whence it originates, that is, from the Creator. It can also mean “a rule of action mandatory in form, which reason itself reveals as established and promulgated by the author of nature and imposed upon all men.”

Natural law theory is the school of philosophy that maintains: 

• Before there is any positive or conventional order, there is an objective moral normativity that is accessible to everyone.
• This moral normativity, which this kind of viewpoint typically refers to as “natural law” or “natural moral law,” acts as an indicator and instrument for the moral assessment of any conventional or positive order. 
• That is why such measures and instruments permit the moral disqualification of any positive ordinance that is in conflict with natural law without necessarily addressing the precise legal ramifications of such disqualification.

According to natural law theory, at least part of the authority of legal standards stems from their moral quality. Some natural law legal theories are more diverse than others in that they emphasize distinct aspects of morality in establishing the legitimacy of legal standards. John Austin’s conceptual jurisprudence offers a set of sufficient and necessary requirements for the existence of law that separate it from non-law in all conceivable worlds. 

The intersection of natural law moral and legal ideas is the main emphasis of classical natural law philosophy, including Thomas Aquinas’ doctrine. In a similar vein, classical natural law theory is developed in John Finnis’ neo-naturalism. On the other hand, Lon L. Fuller’s procedural naturalism rejects the conceptual naturalist theory that substantive moral restrictions are required for the content of laws. Finally, legal positivism is reacted to and critiqued by Ronald Dworkin’s theory. These theories are significant to the growth and influence of natural law legal theory because they all adhere to one or more of its fundamental principles.

Additionally, there is no formal written code for natural law. Also, neither a defined punishment for breaking it nor a particular benefit for following its guidelines exists. Natural law is unchanging and has eternal significance. Other names for natural law include divine law, the law of nature, the law of God, etc. The term “divine law” refers to a directive from God to humans. In addition to being established by the same reason that governs the world, natural law is also the law of reason because it is understood and addressed by man’s reasoning nature. Additionally, it is also known as common law or universal law because it is not specific to Athens and has universal legitimacy, being the same everywhere and binding on all people. 

Finally, it is now, in modern times, referred to as ‘moral law’ since it expresses the fundamentals of morality. The natural law rejects the idea that the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ aspects of the law can ever be strictly separated, and it holds that doing so would needlessly confuse the legal system. Natural law proponents contend that since concepts like ‘justice’, ‘right’, and ‘reason’ are derived from the law of nature and human nature, they cannot entirely be excluded from the scope of the law. It is widely regarded as the perfect source of law, with unchanging contents.

Principal elements of Natural Law

The notion of “natural law” is ambiguous. In the course of its evolution, its meaning has been interpreted in various ways. On the other hand, it has long been regarded as the perfect source of invariant law. The following succinctly summarizes the main attributes of natural law-

• The a priori method differs from the empirical method in that the former accepts information or conclusions about a subject without further investigation or observation, whereas the latter, known as the a posteriori approach, seeks to learn more about the reasons and causes concerning the topic at hand.
• It represents the morally-based physical laws of nature that are applicable everywhere and at all times.
• It has frequently been employed, depending on the circumstances, to either support a change or uphold the status quo. For instance, Hobbes employed natural law to uphold the status quo in society, while Locke utilized it as a tool for change.
• Natural law theory is essentially the foundation for the concepts of “rule of law” in England and India and “due process” in the United States.

Kinds of Natural Law theories

First and foremost, before going into the details of natural law understood and advocated by various thinkers during different- different time periods, it is crucial to understand the difference between the two types of theories that are referred to as natural law. They are-

Theory of law

Regarding the connection between morality and the law, there is another theory of natural law theology. The idea of law and the idea of morality are not clearly distinct, in accordance with the natural law theory of law. The idea that some laws have “authority” based not on some human norm before them but rather on the way they make sense in regard to moral standards is shared by all natural law theories, despite their variations. Stated differently, there exist rules that hold authority due to their moral content, even in situations where there is no established convention that uses moral values as a standard for legal legitimacy. 

Theory of morality

The natural law theoryof morality can be interpreted broadly by the theses, which are as follows- 

1. First, moral propositions have what is frequently referred to as objective standing in the sense that they have objective truth value; that is, moral ideas can be either objectively true or incorrect. The link between moral objectivism and moral realism is contentious, even though moral objectivism is commonly confused with moral realism and that “the truth of any moral proposition lies in its correspondence with a mind-and convention-independent moral reality.” Moral objectivism is one kind of moral realism, but it’s not the only one, according to Geoffrey Sayre-McCord. Other types of moral realism include moral subjectivism and moral intersubjectivism. Therefore, natural law moral theory is limited in its commitment to the objectivity of moral standards.
2. The second hypothesis forms the basis of natural law. The idea behind moral theory is that moral principles are inherent in or derived from the nature of the universe and human nature. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas states that morality is defined by human reason, saying that reason is “the rule and measure of human acts, which is the first principle of human acts.” According to this prevalent viewpoint, it is morally right for humans to act in a way that is consistent with their rational nature, since humans are rational beings by nature. As a result, Aquinas infers the code of morality from human nature.

Relationship between the theories – overlap thesis

The Overlap Thesis is the theory that morality and legality are related in some way. Although many proponents of the natural law theory of morality are also proponents of the natural law theory of law, the two systems are logically distinct from one another from an empirical standpoint. While maintaining a natural law view of morality, one can reject the natural law theory of law. For instance, John Austin, the most significant of the early legal positivists, rejected the Overlap Thesis and maintained a theory of natural law ethics instead.

In fact, Austin came out in favor of the idea that a norm’s legality is not always determined by how morally sound its contents are. Austin, however, rejected the Overlap Thesis while accepting an objectivist moral theory. In fact, Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill were the primary influences on Austin’s utilitarianism. It is important to note that utilitarians occasionally seem to imply that certain aspects of human nature are the source of their utilitarianism. Bentham, for example, famously stated that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” They are the only ones who can advise us on what is right and what we should actually do. The chain of causes and effects and the standard of right and wrong are affixed to their thrones, respectively. Therefore, rejecting the natural law theory of law is consistent with adhering to the natural law theory of morality.

On the other hand, it would be uncommon to embrace a natural law theory of law without also adhering to a natural law theory of morality. For instance, one could maintain a kind of ethical subjectivism or relativism while still maintaining that the conceptual goal of law is, at least in part, to replicate the demands of morality. According to this strange perspective, the purpose of the law is to uphold morally sound norms that have gained cultural acceptance. Because of this, the natural law theory of morality and the natural law theory of law are logically distinct. 

Divisions as per Aquinas

The majority of individuals agree that Thomas Aquinas is the greatest natural law theorist in the history of the Western world. He critically carried on the major traditions of natural law or quasi-natural law thought from antiquity and arranged components of these traditions in a methodical way within the context of the metaphysics of creation and divine providence. 

Aquinas’ view of natural law combines the morality or conscience that humans get from reason with God’s command to act morally. The Euthyphro dilemma, which asserts, “Either something is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right,” was first brought up by Plato in his book Euthyphro and presents a significant obstacle when examining how the two interact. 

Therefore, if God requires something because it is right, then God does not decide what is right; if God commands something because it is right, this is known as the divine command hypothesis, and there is a possibility that it conflicts with human morality, for example, when innocent infants are sacrificed. Many people, including Thomas Aquinas, have rejected the divine command idea due to this arbitrary difficulty. Rather than making an action morally correct, Aquinas thinks that God’s precepts help individuals realize what behavior is virtue-based and morally good. This logic calls into question the morality of an activity as well as God’s place in the natural law framework. In his theory of natural law, which encompasses divine law, human law, eternal law, and natural law, Thomas Aquinas provides an explanation.

Let us discuss them now.

Eternal Law

Aquinas uses the term “Eternal Law” to refer to God’s rational purpose and arrangement for everything. Furthermore, the Eternal Law has always existed and always will because it is a part of God’s intellect. God did not just decide to write the Eternal Law at a certain moment in time. According to him, God’s eternal law is the meaningful word that has existed and will continue to exist as the rationale, plan, or purpose for everything. According to Aquinas, everything has a purpose or objective that it should strive to fulfill because God has established it. 

He is a teleologist, and his ideas are comparable to those of Aristotle, who held that everything has a purpose or goal that people should work towards.

Aquinas also held that anything that fulfills its telos, or aim, is good or virtue in accordance with natural law and follows eternal rule. For instance, an acorn’s purpose is to develop into an oak, and an eye’s purpose is to see. If either of these things fails to achieve its intended function, they are evil or break the law. However, because humans are diverse and have varying capacities, it becomes more difficult to determine or identify the goal in their cases. As long as something accomplishes its goal or plan, in his opinion, it is good. This makes sense in everyday life. Thus, he believes that good eyesight is defined as the ability to see well, and an acorn is good if it develops into a robust oak tree.

Natural Law

According to Aquinas, reason is what distinguishes humans from other objects in the world, such as tables, rats, the sun, and so on. He thinks that one of the greatest things about humans is their capacity for reason and why they are here. Human acts ought to be based on logic that will produce broad, universal principles, or primary precepts, as Aquinas refers to them, that are universally acknowledged as being unchangeable and required of all. For instance, he thinks that the initial perception is the desire and indisputable right to pursue and practice good while avoiding evil. This belief is supported by reason. 

Aside from defending human life, additional fundamental principles that apply to everyone are thinking about and worshiping God, raising children, and contributing to society. These guidelines or precepts make up natural law, and those who follow or accomplish them are doing so in accordance with eternal law. Natural laws are not codified; rather, they are norms that humans can recognize because they make sense.

According to Aquinas, acting rationally is what is appropriate for me and you as human beings. We are following the natural law when we behave rationally. The broad rules that we shall all agree upon if we all behave rationally are known as primary precepts, according to Thomas Aquinas. Because these are indisputable and enforceable against all reasonable actors, Aquinas disapproves of relativism.

The first major rule states that evil should be shunned and virtue should be sought after. This, in his opinion, should serve as the foundation for all of our decision-making. Unlike the other rules, which are stated, there are internal rules that any reasonable person may understand by just thinking. Aquinas refers to internal rather than external laws when he speaks of “natural laws.”

Natural law produces broad principles that any rational person can grow to recognize just by virtue of being rational, as opposed to producing an external set of laws that are recorded for us to review. 

For example, according to Aquinas, pursuing good and avoiding evil is just part of who we are and shouldn’t require confirmation. Aquinas outlines a few essential principles:

• Safeguard and maintain human life,
• Both procreate and educate one’s progeny,
• Recognize and honor God,
• Be a part of a society.

These are the fundamental principles, since they are in line with natural law and apply to every individual in every situation.

Human Law

Since the primary precepts, or natural law, are broad and cannot be applied to every tiny human action, Aquinas also outlines the secondary precepts, or human law, which are laws created by men to govern their daily activities. These laws are not founded on human reason; rather, they are imposed or approved by sovereigns such as kings, governments, judges, and so forth. These include obeying traffic laws and not committing fraud or theft, among other things.

They might not be morally acceptable, and they might not be in line with natural principles because they are not developed from reason. One should not follow these precepts if they conflict with the main commandments because they simply seem to benefit appearances. 

Nevertheless, since they are really beneficial, those minor commandments that align with the main precepts ought to be adhered to. For instance, it is neither ethically just nor noble to have permitted the persecution of Jews by German legislation during the Hitler era. The main commandment to safeguard human life was contradicted by the German laws, which supported persecution but were not supported by human reason or natural law. Consequently, Aquinas would have contended that these secondary commandments were irrational and that the German lawmakers would have viewed them as immoral and unacceptable if they had reasoned and behaved in accordance with reason. As civilizations and times change, these precepts, in contrast to core precepts, are not guaranteed to remain stable and distinct.

Aquinas does not believe that there should be a single set of secondary precepts that apply to everyone in every circumstance, in contrast to the main precepts. Since there is no real-world justification for believing that there is just one right side of the road to drive on, Aquinas’s theories are consistent with the laws that require drivers to drive on the left in the UK and on the right in the US.

Since it is obvious that we are not very effective at discovering basic precepts on our own, Aquinas believes that talking and interacting with people is what we should do. We must be a part of a society in order to identify our true goods and our secondary precepts that are in line with natural law. Until we interact and coexist with Christians, for instance, we might believe that the secondary guideline “treat Christians as secondary citizens” is a desirable one. “Live in society” is itself one of the main precepts since it allows us to think and communicate with others in society more.

Divine Law

It is important to consider that the divine law, which is revealed, is the heavenly counterpart of the human law, which is derived from human reason and creation. The rules found in scripture are known as divine laws, which are those that God has graciously decided to impart to humankind. These laws are sometimes referred to as “mysteries.”

In the natural law theory, God or religion plays the role of providing divine law. The definition of divine law is that which is revealed by God and is akin to human law that complies with natural law. These are those laws, or enigmatic regulations, that God has seen fit to bestow upon mankind, according to Aquinas, and they are contained in religious texts and teachings such as the Christian Ten Commandments. Since it is easy for a man to err while determining the secondary commandments, God has revealed them to help men find them. 

Aquinas uses the example of adultery to clarify. A married guy having an affair claims that since he is in love, God must be pleased with him and that therefore, it cannot be wrong. However, the church’s preacher asserts that adultery is forbidden, citing the Ten Commandments as support. The instance shows how people might become perplexed and misunderstand their own intentions by applying incorrect reasoning, which is why God gave these guidelines. According to Aquinas, men can discover and achieve their goals as defined by God in eternal law with the aid of divine rules.

Greek origins of Natural Law

The concepts of natural law were initially understood by the Greeks. In their philosophical investigations of social norms, human civilization, and moral aspirations, the Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato acknowledged the existence of universal laws that govern the world and are universally applicable to all human beings without discrimination. They were also the first people in history to create law as a separate and distinct entity beyond mere faith or a collection of religious rituals. Their quest towards a long and painful definition of justice and the law was best summed up by W. Friedmann as an attempt to find unwavering values.

An enlightened group of Greek philosophers known as the Sophists laid out the foundational principles of natural law in and around the fifth century B.C. They saw nature more as an order of things, a relation, than as a substance. The Stoics, who brought an altogether new dimension to the idea of natural law, succeeded the Sophists in their philosophy. Greek philosophers began to shift away from antiquated, traditional notions in the fifth century B.C., which marked a radical shift in the field. The Sophists, who defined law as a purely human creation derived from necessity, independent of metaphysics, and malleable at whim, saw a remarkable development throughout this century. Greece’s underlying socioeconomic conditions, which frequently resulted in changes to the rules of the democratic republic’s city states, sparked this rationalization of law and justice.

The Sophists wondered why laws changed so often and, after disputing their validity, came to the conclusion that natural law was different from written law. For instance, Sophocles claims that written law is arbitrary whereas natural or divine rule is judicious in his masterpiece Antigone. One of the founders of sophism, Heraclitus, saw nature as a cycle of events. Nature was recognized for the first time as an entity made up of relationships and an order of things and as a concept apart from matter or substance. The Sophists’ conception of natural justice, which they characterized as a set of unchangeable, unnegotiable standards that were never arbitrary and were always equally applicable to all people, was strengthened by this acknowledgment of Nature as an actual, superior entity.

In a similar vein, the Sophist philosopher Callicles advanced the idea of natural justice. His focus was on the “right of the strong.” He claimed that although human rules are meant to defend the vulnerable and advance equality among all people, they are inherently at odds with nature’s fundamental law, which favors the strong over the weak. This is due to the fact that nature is inherently unequal; every member of the animal and human species has a distinct level of power, and in both societies, the natural order is for the strong to prevail over the weak. Similarly, Thrasymachus emphasized that the powerful used the law as a weapon to achieve their own agendas. He asserted that it pays to act unfairly if one can get away with it, and that the path of injustice is significantly more profitable than the path of justice.

Let us discuss the significant contributions of various Greek philosophers.

Contribution by Socrates

Socrates, one of the most influential philosophers in antiquity, had a strong respect for moral principles and the truth. According to Socrates, “Law is a product of correct reasoning.” His philosophy, which held that humans are capable of seeing what is good and wrong in nature, was founded on the most important factor of all time: insight. Also, the basis for judging the legislation will be this awareness. 

According to Socrates, human insight judges a law, and reasonability, which is further defined by human insight, is a factor in judging a law. Socrates introduced a fresh perspective to the law by evaluating it rather than just taking it at face value without understanding its actual implications and purpose. If we were to relate it to the present, Socrates provided one of the most crucial criteria, reasonability, that is still used to determine what justice is throughout the world. 

Contribution by Plato

Plato founded his ideas and contributions on the teachings of Socrates; he does not explicitly hold a philosophy of natural law. With the exception of Gorgias and Timaeus, he seldom ever employs the phrase “natural law.” His contribution is noteworthy because he further developed his theory on the basis of a class system in society based on the division of labor and contended and advocated that society must be split on the basis of a reasonable classification in which each individual knows their work. 

Justice, in his view, was the ability to pursue one’s own goals without meddling in those of others. In the manner described above, he made a contribution to the natural school. However, he disagreed with the idea that justice should be administered in accordance with the law; rather, he believed that a wise man who has been taught in kingship should administer justice. His writings were predicated on the idea that the universe is ordered, and he defined the form of good as “the brightest region of being.” He argued against the morality-based thesis put forth by philosophers and other thinkers. 

Contribution by Aristotle

Natural law scholars like Hegel, Stammler, Kant, and others owe a great deal to Aristotle because of his outstanding contribution to the field. By “reasons unaffected by desires,” he meant natural law. He held that natural justice was a system of unchangeable principles that applied universally, but he also made a groundbreaking contribution by diverging from previous theories regarding the supremacy of law over person, which goes against Plato’s theory. 

Additionally, he chose a pragmatic approach to law with a dynamic mentality, primarily classifying justice into two categories:-

• natural justice, which is unchangeable, and 
• conventional justice, which is flexible. 

Aristotle’s contribution to natural law theory can be characterized as a dynamic synthesis of many elements of past theories and a significant departure from idealism to realism with a dash of rhetorical perspective. Given that he views man as both a part of and a ruler of nature, his contribution can best be described as an almost ideal condition of equilibrium in the conception of law and justice. He is regarded as the natural law school’s founding father.

Natural Law from the perspective of Roman philosophers

The Romans were the ones who, in antiquity, followed the Greeks in delving deeper into the subject of natural law and adapting it to best suit their contemporary society. Roman philosophers were greatly influenced by the Greeks, but they did not develop any original theories or give the Natural Law any entirely new dimensions—we can count that in a unique way. Nevertheless, there is no question that the Romans translated the theories into practical applications and made them work flawlessly in the diverse Roman society. 

Their contribution to the Natural School of Law is particularly significant since they shaped the theories to perfection and gave them a realistic differentiation that benefited the Roman public at the time. The application of natural law principles in the spirit of ideas and theories advanced by the Greeks during their time constitutes the major contribution of the Roman philosophers. The Roman legal system was founded not just on philosophical principles but also on real-world cases and issues that arose within that particular community. 

With time, the Roman system evolved into a cosmopolitan one by utilizing natural law as a tool rather than remaining limited to a single dimension. It is important to note that Roman law benefited from the positive impact of natural law. The primary source of inspiration was stoicism, whose ethical principles could be readily adapted to the Roman environment and served as the theoretical foundation for the Roman concept of natural law. The Stoic School of thought had a significant impact on both modern Roman philosophy and the natural law school of law. Not many well-known philosophers and jurists can be named primarily for their contributions to the development of the natural school of law, but thanks to a group of enlightened Roman philosophers and jurists, the law was divided into reasonable divisions wherein the natural law’s tenets were ingrained. 

The Roman legal system was influenced by three concurrent notions, which are as follows:

1. JUS CIVILE– This phrase alluded to Roman civil law, which was exclusive to Roman citizens and did not apply to other people. The legislative assembly passed it. 
2. JUS GENTIUM– This was the set of rules or laws that applied to foreigners or non-citizens. It was used on the varied populace that made up Rome’s heterogeneous population. 
3. JUS NATURALE– This law referred to a higher order of principles that served as a standard by which the positive law created by men could be measured. They are unchangeable facts. It also refers to a fair claim supported by the resolution of a specific case in that instance. Rather than representing enlightened rationality, the natural law represented a reasonable proposition.

The background information provided above makes it evident how the Romans influenced the natural school of law. One well-known Roman philosopher stands out for his unique contributions to the development of the Natural School of Law. It is important to note that the Romans made a unique contribution in that they did not establish a distinct corpus of natural law, but rather they applied the ideas of “jus genitum” to specific instances. This strategy gave rise to the ideas of “ex debito justitiae” and “acquum et bonum.” We can unravel the contribution of one of the finest Roman jurists and scholars in order to decode and learn more about the contribution in particular. 

Contribution by Cicero 

Cicero, who drew a lot of inspiration from the Stoic thinkers, viewed the law as the ultimate reason revealed in nature that dictates what should and shouldn’t be done. Additionally, he reiterated the ideas and precepts established by other natural law thinkers, but he held the opinion that a state law could not be considered valid if it conflicts with natural law. According to his theory, a genuine law must be reasonable, universal, and in accordance with nature in order to be combined with human understanding. 

As humankind stands highest in creation by virtue, his theory discusses a new horizon in which he provided a hybrid blend of positive law and natural law that may be appraised by the ability of reason. If we compare it to the present, it is not incorrect to argue that Cicero’s contribution cleared the path for the growth of law in a comprehensive sense in the practical sense and that his virtue was venturing into uncharted territory in the area of international law. 

Drawing inspiration from the founder of Stoicism, Zeno, he made a significant contribution to the natural school of law that had a positive impact on society as a whole. His contribution was too active since it combined the intellect of humans, a heavenly source, and the proper institutions to be implemented in Roman society at the time.

Significance of the contribution

“The products of positive legislation are either granted or denied the highest crown by truth, and their true moral force is derived from truth.” Greek and Roman law have been observed by the natural school of law to evolve. Since they were the ones who applied legal theories to Roman society, the contribution of Roman philosophers to this school is particularly significant. They maintained control over the absolutist and autocratic tendencies by continuously introducing natural law school concepts. It’s interesting to note that, although on the surface, both philosophers accepted the existence of universal principles, their idealism diverged, leading to a notable distinction between them. Roman jurists and philosophers made greater contributions because they approached the law with a more practical mindset. It is frequently claimed that the Romans had no original theories and only worked with Greek theories. While I agree with this statement in part, I also think that the Romans used their own intelligence to extract the most beneficial applications of natural law principles for their particular society. 

It is incorrect to say that the Roman philosophers exclusively focused on the theories of the Greek philosophers; rather, they developed the concepts of natural law outside of theoretical frameworks and into the real world. In addition, they added new dimensions to the theories while working on them. It is important to note that the Romans made a significant contribution to the school in the litmus sense. To further explain this, let’s look at a classic example from the field of astronomy: theories of star clusters and black holes exist, but they are still theories that lack concrete evidence. 

A new level beyond the realm of the ordinary mind. As researchers, we may also deduce that the Romans were the ones who gave the lifeless letters life and soul and that this evolution continued over time. The greatest way to illustrate the true meaning of invention and discovery is to look at how the Greeks developed new theories within the natural law school and how the Romans created new applications for those theoretical ideas that were already in place before being incorporated into a live code of law. 

Due to the three distinct divisions in the Roman justice and legal systems, it was the Roman scholars who made Plato’s theory feasible in the real world. All things considered, we can argue that the Greeks gave the Romans the alphabet, and if we can draw a connection, the Romans used it to build sentences from a legal standpoint. This, in my opinion, is the best way to comprehend why the Romans’ contributions are greater. Their philosophy gave rise to the idea of modern state sovereignty. Roman law has a personality and spirit that blend nicely with its ethos and methodical procedures. It is both humanistic and intimate. 

The Greeks made a significant contribution to Roman society, which is why everything the Romans and Greeks invented still seems so new. Whether it is in the form of literature, ethics, or principles, their influence seems to be as recent as a few days ago. Researching the natural school of law’s early history is as fascinating as gazing at the sun setting over the Aegean Sea. Natural law is considered to be the overall framework.

Natural Law in the medieval period

The ‘medieval age’ in European history is usually accepted to have spanned the 12th to the mid-14th centuries. The religious beliefs that the Christian fathers advocated to secure the primacy of the Church over the State dominated this period. They established a new legal system and political ideology based on morality and theology by promoting Christianity and using natural law theory.

It was the belief of the Christian saints, particularly Ambrose, St. Augustine, and Gregory, that divine law was superior to all other rules. They hold that all rules are either human or divine. While human rules are based on habit, divine laws are based on nature. Natural law is supreme over all other rules since it is divine in nature. Saint Augustine made the claim that the scriptures contain revelations of heavenly knowledge. In actuality, the tenets of natural law are the moral precepts found in the Bible. Gierke claims that the two main tenets of Christian theology during the Middle Ages were as follows-

• God-given unity comprising a single faith, church, and empire, and
• the supremacy of all laws, divine and human, as a component of the cosmos’ oneness.

Natural law, divine law, and human law were all intertwined until the advent of humanism. They were all imposed by God from above.

The following succinctly sums up the fundamental ideas of medieval natural law theory-

• The theory’s proponents held that because institutions like property, slavery, and the state are not products of nature, they symbolize wicked wants even though they are required to restrain or prevent men’s nasty tendencies. Man’s growth in morality and ethical ideals depends on the presence of the state and society. Cicero agreed with this viewpoint.
• The strongest securing factor for both the governed and the governing is “law.” As a result, the natural law view acknowledges that law is supreme.
• The most significant issue facing legal philosophers and thinkers in the Middle Ages was how to correctly interpret the law. They held that there are two aspects to human activity, both-

1. earthly or worldly, and 
2. divine or Godly. 

Because of their stark differences, there is no need to discuss conflict or confrontation between the two states; for example, the ruler is in charge of matters of the earth, while the Pope is in charge of matters pertaining to God.

• The prevailing opinion on the subject of the precise origin of legal authority in a developed society was that the state and laws were gifts from the people who consented to them.

The earliest theories, which subsequently gained significant practical significance, originated in the Middle Ages. Philosophers developed the theory of the social contract in an attempt to find a foundation upon which the authority of the State could be justified. Although there were numerous variations of this theory, the common compromise during the Middle Ages was that the monarch was subject to natural law but above positive law. This means rejecting the Roman theory that natural law is the unchangeable foundation of civil law.

While natural law may have served as the foundation for positive law throughout the Middle Ages, there is now a tendency to view natural law as a superior set of principles that should be used to determine if positive law is valid. Thus, the seeds of the subsequent doctrine of natural rights can be seen as early as this century.

Contribution by Saint Thomas Aquinas

A special mention should be made of Thomas Aquinas among the medieval theologians. He is regarded as the age’s leading proponent of the natural law doctrine. He believed that the state and social structure were natural phenomena. St. Thomas Aquinas noted that although man has some degree of control over his fate, he is nevertheless susceptible to certain fundamental impulses, such as the urge to preserve himself, procreate, raise his offspring, and so on, in an effort to better his future and achieve perfection. He described the law as “an ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated through reason.” He stated that “the primary precept of law is that good should be done and pursued and evil should be avoided.” The goal of man’s actions is to guarantee his excellence, continuation, and survival. He must take action to accomplish them, and it is morally unacceptable to act in any way that contradicts his goals. St. Thomas Aquinas categorized laws into four categories, which are as follows-

1. The law of God or external law,
2. Natural law, which is revealed through “reason”, 
3. Divine law or the law of Scriptures, and
4. Human laws, which we now call ‘positive law’. 

Similar to his forebears, St. Aquinas accepted that natural law derives from “reason” and is utilized by humans to regulate their interactions and affairs. According to his opinion, positive law should only be recognized inasmuch as it is consistent with external or natural law. He considered the church to be the last arbiter of divine law. He therefore took an empirical approach to natural law because his findings came from an examination of human nature. He believed that the only source of knowledge about human social life was “reason.” Since the law is a tool for achieving the general good, St. Aquice and his followers held that it should be supreme. He defended property rights and the right of man to own property since it gives him satisfaction and contributes to the upkeep of peace and order in society. On the other hand, he believed that property should be used and enjoyed by all members of society, not just the ones who acquire it. Therefore, the cornerstone of St. Thomas Aquinas’ legal thought was the primacy of natural law.

Following Aristotle, Aquinas believed that “justice is a habit” that is developed via experience and action. He maintained that fairness is a virtue that one possesses in interpersonal relationships, and placed special emphasis on the distributive notion of justice. The pursuit of justice is a lifelong and unwavering commitment to giving everyone their due. It is an all-encompassing virtue that benefits both the individual and the community. In Greek tradition, the political goal of justice is to preserve individual unity. Equality is a prerequisite for justice. In order to maintain common equality, Aquinas claimed that “justice is to share” our own profit with others. This statement embodies the distributive aspect of his conception of justice. 

Renaissance-reformation and counter-reformation

The Renaissance is typically connected to literature and the arts. Not only is it seen as the rebirth of the Greek and Roman classics, but it is also seen as the emergence of a new meaning for life, a time when the independent individual, as the person with a clear meaning, breaks free from the dominance of the clergy and morality set by the Church. The rediscovered life philosophy of the classics nourishes an emancipation of the man of the world, the man of secular study, and the artist and poet, who position themselves as equals alongside the learned monk and secular clergy, not against them. In terms of politics, this refers to the breakup of the medieval alliance between the Church and the Empire in favor of the fully developed nation-states and city-republics that emphasize their independence from both the Church and the Empire.

Even though the Renaissance was tremendously significant when seen in this light, it is true that the notion of natural law did not advance much during this time. The Humanists were admirers of the stoic philosophy as well as of the great orator Cicero, who skillfully popularized both the stoic philosophy and the intellectual principles of Roman law, which at the time had been liberated from Canon Law and had once again taken over the world. Because they are content with what they read and reread in their cherished ancients, the Renaissance philosophers, in the traditional sense, have little to add to our issue. Of course, one could argue that Machiavelli, the great skeptic of the notion of natural law, ought to be mentioned here as the one who first distinguished between politics and ethics, who first focused on a political science devoid of moral judgments, and who was only interested in the means, in the strategies for obtaining and retaining an autonomously morally neutral power, which he saw as the exclusive purpose of politics However, the prevailing sentiment at the time prevented him from doing so, just as it prevented Hobbes from publicly expressing his complete disdain for natural law a century later.

The rise of new ideas in various domains of knowledge and rationality characterized the modern classical age, which is also known as the Renaissance period in the history of the development of natural law. The foundation of traditional values was destroyed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries by new scientific discoveries combined with a general awakening among the populace. Apart from that, the massive expansion of trade and commerce in European nations gave rise to new social strata that required stronger official protection.

The development of natural law theory was aided by numerous philosophers. Let us discuss them.

Hugo Grotius

Hugo Grotius was a lawyer in the Dutch Republic who established the foundations of international law based on natural law. By claiming that natural laws were authoritative in and of themselves, regardless of belief in God, Grotius took the study of natural law from the purview of moral theologians and placed it under the purview of philosophers and lawyers. He believed that all social and rational beings, Christian and non-Christian, were subject to the moral principles of natural law. 

Grotius is recognized as the father of international law. “Laws of War and Peace” is his most famous work. He claims that just as the principles of natural law apply to all people in a uniform manner, so too do the principles of international law apply to all nations equally, both in times of peace and conflict. He referred to these principles as natural law, which is related to the law of nations. Grotius thought that people are peace-loving creatures by nature who want to live by the rules of reason. He asserted that the foundation of natural law is man’s inherent nature and desire to live in harmony with others.

Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes developed a social contractual legal positivist philosophy. He said that while there was disagreement among men about what they desired (happiness), there was widespread agreement about what they dreaded (violent death at the hands of another, loss of liberty, and personal property). The definition of natural law is the course of action that a reasonable person would choose in order to survive and prosper. It might be found by taking humankind’s natural rights into consideration; earlier interpretations have derived natural rights by taking the natural law into consideration.

Hobbes highlighted his theories on how people behave. He asserted that humans are wolves by nature. Despite his inherent aggressive character, he always lives in a state of conflict and longs for peace. There are three reasons for this-

1. Fear of dying
2. Natural items are necessary for him to live comfortably.
3. He entered into a contract with the sovereign as a result of his attempts to obtain materialistic goods and this fear, which forced him to understand the social contract that nobody, not even the ruler, would meddle in their task. Hobbes asserted that natural law is only a moral precept and that laws established by sovereigns are binding.

John Locke

One of the most important political thinkers of the modern era is John Locke. He defended the idea that mankind is naturally free and equal against the idea that God created everyone to be subservient to a ruler in the Two Treatises of Government. He maintained that, because of humankind, all individuals are inherently subservient to a monarchy. He maintained that a person’s fundamental rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, and property, are unaffected by the laws of any given community.

Locke undermined the capacity of the individual and supported the state’s total sovereignty. He challenged Hobbes’ theory of the social contract. He asserted that Hobbes’ portrayal of existence in the natural world was not entirely depressing and brutal. Instead, aside from the unstable property, it was pleasantly pleasant and of decent quality. Man made a “social contract” to guarantee the appropriate protection of his property, giving up only some of his rights, not all of them, as Hobbes claims in his theory. Therefore, he gave up the right to uphold law and order and to execute the natural law, but he retained the right to life, liberty, and property. The state’s mission is to safeguard citizens’ natural rights.

Jean Rousseau

According to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the enslavement of contemporary man to his own needs is to blame for a host of social problems, including sadness and low self-esteem as well as the exploitation and dominance of others. Rousseau linked sadness and low self-esteem to his dominance and exploitation of other people. According to Rousseau, the freedom of every person should be the primary goal of a good government. With some limitations specific to a sophisticated, contemporary civil society, Rousseau attempted to envision the type of governance that best honors the individual freedom of all of its people, particularly in The Social Contract.

General Will theory is the name given to his hypothesis. He asserted that the social compact does not determine the creation of a state; rather, the general will does. Because it is the desire of the people, he continued, the state cannot enact laws that are unjust. According to him, natural law cannot be unjust because it is inherent in human nature. He asserted that the people, not any one individual, own sovereignty.

Immanuel Kant

Kant agreed with the social contract notion as well. Kant distinguished between acquired and natural rights, asserting that only natural rights are essential to an individual’s freedom. Kant introduced his well-known categorical imperative theory in his seminal work, “Critique of Pure Reason.”

Rousseau’s idea of general will served as the basis for Kant’s theory of categorical imperative. It is based on three ideas-

1. According to the categorical imperative, a man must behave in a way that allows his conscience to guide him. This is just an exercise in the freedom of self-determination.
2. The idea of the autonomy of the will, which denotes an action arising from reason but does not imply the freedom to do as one pleases, was the second premise put forth by Kant.
3. He asserted that human behavior is faultless and always in accordance with the general will of others, and that the main purpose of the state is to protect its citizens, who are then required to abide by the laws established by the state.

Natural Law in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries

Following the 19th century, there was a setback for the natural law hypothesis. Natural law theory was categorically rejected by Bentham and Austin as being false. Bentham went on to describe natural law theory as basic and nonsensical. 

People’s ambitions were not met by the positivist 19th century, which placed a strong emphasis on morality and reason as components of law. Prior to the 20th century, natural law should have governed civil law. However, in the 20th century, they remained ideal principles; instead of declaring civil law to be incorrect if it did not comply, natural law’s task was to create civil law.

The natural law theories had a resurgence towards the end of the 19th century for a variety of reasons, including the following-

• The necessity for the restoration of positive law sprang from reactions against 19th-century legal doctrines that overemphasized the significance of the law as it exists today.
• The scientists themselves acknowledge that scientific research is predicated on certain presumptions, and unlike the concept of time and space, modifications in the research can also occur.
• When these ideas evolved into norms or a code of conduct, it was shown that thinking in general terms was not entirely useless.
• The positivists became aware of their powerlessness as new issues continued to arise and get worse.
• Legal scholars of the 20th century were forced by the effects of materialism on society and the changes in sociopolitical circumstances to search for a value-oriented philosophy that would help stop the moral decline of humanity as a whole.
• Morals and ethics had no place in the world after the two world wars wreaked destruction. It was determined that creating rules based on the principles of natural law was urgently needed.

The historical school started to replace this earlier natural law, which was based on the idea of a government of men who are born free and equal, with a natural law with a historical component once the nineteenth century was well underway. The development of the concept of liberty in Hegelian philosophy was seen in the development of legal history. The inherent law of the present is derived from the rights of the past. Individual rights were determined by the common law’s guarantees, and the philosophy of history served as the foundation for the natural law system.

Proponents of Natural Law

John M. Finnis and Lon Fuller have made the most contributions to the resurgence of natural law theory.

John Finnis

“Primarily the rules made by regulative legal rules by an effective authority for a complete community” is how he describes law. He sees natural law from a totally different angle. He doesn’t think about natural law in terms of metaphysics or human nature.

In the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the US Supreme Court discussed morality and the necessity of natural law. Finnis has attempted to restate natural law and offer a contemporary interpretation and analysis of it. Additionally, he dispels two significant fallacies about the natural law doctrine.

He argues that natural law can be determined from inside knowledge of innate drive, which varies from person to person, rather than being obtained from objectivity and a predetermined pattern of behavior. Natural law does not hold that if a law is against morals, it is not a law.

Lon Fuller

He disagrees with the idea that natural law is a body of supremely authoritative law and that a person’s behavior should be evaluated in relation to these values. Any conception of natural law that aims to establish a predetermined, timeless code of nature cannot be accepted. Instead, he proposes giving an ancient phenomenon a new name. He proposes the name “Eunomics,” which he describes as “the theory or study of workable arrangement and good order.” With that, he issued a warning that Eunomics must reject any attempt at orthodoxy or ideology that would impose final goals.

He contends that the methods by which the laws carry out their objectives are what ultimately determine their integrity. There are six requirements that must be met for morality to support law-

1. It is necessary to establish broad guidelines to direct behavior.
2. The public must be made aware of these regulations.
3. The regulations should be prospective in character, which means they shouldn’t be regressive and instead should fit into the future.
4. They ought to be presented in a way that is both thorough and simple to comprehend.
5. These ought to be in line with other regulations.
6. They ought to be reasonably stable, meaning they shouldn’t be altered too frequently.

UDHR and Natural Law

“No declaration of human rights will ever be exhaustive and final. It will never go hand-in-hand with the state of moral consciousness and civilization at a given moment in history.”

Natural law is still relevant today and is exemplified by the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UDHR. It followed the catastrophic outcomes of both World Wars, which claimed millions of lives and caused enormous economic losses for the whole world. Positive law rose to prominence in the 19th century, but natural law was soon seen as having equal significance.

Some fundamental human rights, such as freedom of expression and religion, were enacted during the war. All member states of the UDHR were obligated under the charter to uphold universal respect for all people, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, language, or religion.

The premise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that all individuals are “endowed with reason and conscience.” It was declared to be a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.” Thus, the drafters agreed with the natural law tradition’s assertions that there are universal moral principles that apply to everyone, everywhere, and that legislators should use these principles as a benchmark when evaluating positive legislation.

Grotius and International Law

The Dutch jurist and scholar Hugo Grotius was born in Delft, Netherlands, on April 10, 1583, and died in Rostock, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, on August 28, 1645. One of his greatest contributions to the growth of international law is thought to be De Jure Belli ac Pacis on the Law of War and Peace. Grotius, who was known as the “Father of International Law,” was also a statesman and diplomat.

Hugo developed the fundamental rules of international law, holding that they apply to every state equally in times of peace and conflict. Because he thought all states were equal and had the complete right to choose their internal and external relations according to their own national interests, Hugo referred to these ideas as the law of nations. Hugo’s primary concerns were the preservation of international peace and the stability of the political order. He discovered that since states should endeavor to uphold peace and order, war should only be used as a weapon to protect national interests and that natural law, which is a mandate of human reason, is the source of international law.

Additionally, he established the doctrine of good fighting, which was founded on the idea that, in many cases, fighting contributes more to peace than it does to it. War must be waged for a good and legitimate reason when it is necessary. As a result, he was recognized as the founder of modern international law since his ideas diverged from Thomas’s scholastic conception of the relationship between reason and conflict, which helped the field of international law flourish in the sixteenth century.

Hugo changed the course of natural law by emphasizing human nature and reason, and for this reason, he is regarded as the father of philosophical jurisprudence. In his well-known book “Laws of War and Peace,” Hugo was the first jurist to study and advance the notion of functional natural law. Hugo argued that natural law is predicated on man’s social nature and his desire to live in a peaceful society.  He went on to say that man is a peace-loving creature who wants to live by the rules of reason.

Natural law is backed by the human behavior or conduct standards that arises from a man’s rational reasoning or thinkng. Because humans are social creatures by nature, these rules become the laws of the nation not because the state approves of them but rather because people agree upon them.

Grotius promoted a natural law theory that was based on Marcus Tullius Cicero’s and other ancient Greek and Roman thinkers’ “higher law” teaching. They held that natural law, or justice criteria, should be used to determine whether or not government laws are legitimate. Grotius did not quote the Bible or any other religious texts in support of natural law. 

He maintained that human reason had found it and that it flowed from the nature of things. “Now the Law of Nature is so immutable that not even God himself can alter it,” the author said because there are some things that God’s light does not reach, even though it is unlimited.

Natural law is the foundation of natural rights, according to Grotius: “Civilians name a faculty that right, which every man possesses to himself…”  This right encompasses the authority we possess over ourselves, which is known as liberty.  It also understands property.  Anything that is inimical to the nature of society, which was formed among rational beings, is now considered unjust.

Grotius has shown an incredible thirst for knowledge throughout his entire life. He was regarded as a young genius. When he was younger, he accomplished amazing things. Even though he was incarcerated, he was still able to learn. Approximately 120 ancient authors were quoted in his most well-known work, De Jure Belli ac Pacis (The Law of War and Peace), which he wrote while living in poverty as a refugee. Notwithstanding the fact that Catholics and Protestants were murdering one another, Grotius’ education enabled him to make friends with both groups.

Unfortunately, he was a Protestant who was attacked by other Protestants for standing up for the idea that people have free choice. It makes sense why van Someren wrote, “His friends liked him despite the fact that they often found him moody, irritable, and not as tactful as he could have been.” He was sometimes careless and irascible, yet his own family loved him unconditionally.

From the looks of things, Grotius was a tall, attractive man. Biographer Hamilton Vreeland described him as having “finely chiseled features,” with a slightly aquiline nose, blue and dazzling eyes, and brown hair. He was a tall, well-built man. vibrant in both body and mind…

The English natural rights philosopher John Locke was influenced by Grotius. “Grotius seems to have been the first who attempted to give the world anything like a regular system of natural jurisprudence,” noted Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith. “With all of its imperfections, his treatise [De Jure Belli ac Pacis] is perhaps, to this day, the most complete work on the subject.” Grotius was regarded by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as a preeminent expert on international conflict resolution. “One could easily point out a sentence by Grotius that outweighs in influence the Acts of fifty Parliaments,” said Lord Acton.

Despite having been influenced by Francisco Suarez, Thomas Aquinas, and other Scholastic philosophers, Grotius developed his ideas about justice apart from organized religion and the Bible. He thought natural law should govern nations. “The dictate of right reason showing the moral turpitude, or the moral necessity, of any act from its agreement or disagreement with a rational nature” was what this meant.

Grotius did not adhere to natural law reasoning in its entirety. Despite the fact that slavery was manifestly against the natural law that everyone is their own owner, he tolerated it. Natural rights have far-reaching ramifications that Grotius failed to recognize.

Though Grotius acknowledged the right to self-defense and the right to damages for harm caused by an enemy, he strongly advocated moderation, particularly in Book III. He thought that since fighting would undoubtedly result in severe losses for all parties involved, every effort should be made to settle conflicts amicably. He suggested restricting what might be taken from an enemy. According to what he wrote, “The law of nature does, in fact, permit us to make such acquisitions in a just war, as may be deemed an equivalent for a debt, which cannot otherwise be obtained, or as may cause a loss upon the aggressor, so long as it remains within the parameters of reasonable punishment.” Similarly, he maintained that the delinquent’s person “must be directly enforced upon” in order for retribution to occur.

Grotius bravely condemned war, citing it as one of the worst evils. He maintained moral principles apart from authority. He offered advice on how to raise the likelihood of peace. The greatest peace agreements, like those that brought an end to the Cold War and World War II, demonstrated his generosity and wisdom by assisting in the transformation of adversaries into allies.

Natural Law and social contract

According to the social contract theory, there is an understanding between the people and the government that stipulates that as long as the government upholds the people’s rights and advances the interests of the general welfare, the people will submit to it. We are in a state of nature before we give our approval. We obey natural law in the state of nature. God is the source of natural law. Our inherent rights are granted to us by natural law as a result of our personhood. Natural rights are those that come with us from birth, such as the right to life.

These rights are unalienable unless we decide to establish an ethical government that upholds the Social Contract. The Social Contract can only be upheld by moral governments. 

Let us look at them in more detail.

All about social contract theory 

Philosophers have argued and examined social contract theory for centuries, and it is still a cornerstone of contemporary political and legal thought. Fundamentally, the social contract theory holds that people willingly choose to establish a government and give up some personal liberties in return for safety and security. Philosophers ranging from Thomas Hobbes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau have tackled this concept in a variety of ways, each providing distinctive viewpoints and insights into the structure of society and the social compact that unites us.

The principles of social contract theory  are as follows-

• The social contract is a choice that people make– People freely join the social contract, according to one of the core tenets of the social contract theory.  This indicates that people voluntarily give up part of their own liberties in return for the advantages of residing in a community that is governed by law.
• A legal government is established by the social contract– The government is legitimate since it was founded with the consent of the governed, according to the social contract theory. This indicates that because the people have granted the government this authority, it is able to enact and enforce laws.
• Natural Law as the foundation for the social contract– Many proponents of the social contract theory contend that natural law, a body of universal rules guiding human conduct, serves as the foundation for the social contract. It is believed that these ideas are part of human nature and are independent of any one culture or community.
• It must not be violated– It is possible for the social contract to be violated, according to certain thinkers, if the government does not uphold its duties to the people. The people are entitled to topple the current government and install a new one in this instance.

All things considered, social contract theory is still a strong and important idea in political and legal thought. The social contract theory offers a helpful framework for comprehending the interaction between people, society, and the state, even if there is a continuous discussion on the nature of the social contract and the function of government in society.

The foundation of social contract theory is the notion that people freely cede to the state part of their inherent rights in return for safety and security. The social contract, according to the philosophers who developed the notion, is the foundation of contemporary democracies and an essential element of any properly operating society.

• Thomas Hobbes– Hobbes thought that establishing a powerful central authority was the only way to prevent a state of war since people are essentially violent and self-centered. In “Leviathan,” he made the case that, in order to be protected, people must cede their inherent rights to a sovereign ruler.
• John Locke– According to Locke, everyone is naturally entitled to their own property, liberty, and life. He maintained that people had the right to overthrow the government if it did not uphold these rights, as it was the duty of the state to do so.
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau– He held that people were decent in heart but were corrupted by society. He maintained that for the greater good, people should be compelled to obey the government and that the social compact should be founded on the collective desire of the populace.
• Immanuel Kant– Kant felt that it was morally required of people to submit to their government. He maintained that since the social compact was a universal law that affected everyone, people had an obligation to uphold it.

It’s crucial to remember that different philosophers have differing opinions regarding the details of the social contract.  The cornerstone of American democracy is the Constitution, which serves as a social compact between the people and the government. It’s crucial to remember that different philosophers have differing opinions regarding the details of the social contract. For instance, Locke favored minimal government, while Hobbes supported a powerful central authority. All philosophers, however, concur that a functioning society depends on the social contract.

Let’s use the US Constitution as an example, which was influenced by social contract theory, to clarify. In addition to safeguarding individual liberties and rights, the Constitution also creates a system of checks and balances that keeps no one arm of government from growing too strong. The cornerstone of American democracy is the Constitution, which serves as a social compact between the people and the government.

Natural law theory from the perspective of social contract theory 

By highlighting the significance of a social contract and, consequently, a voluntary agreement between people and the state to abide by particular laws and regulations, the social contract theory expands upon the natural law theory. In this part, we shall examine the natural law theory in more detail as well as its importance in relation to the social contract theory.

The foundations of natural law theory can be found in Aristotle’s writings and other ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle believed that the law that is inherent in human nature and that may be learned by reason is known as the natural law. Human behavior is governed by this objective, universal law. Thomas Aquinas expanded on this idea later on, contending that the natural law is the law that God has engraved on human nature.

According to the theory, human behavior is governed by a set of objective, universal moral rules. These ideas are innate to human nature and can be learned through reason and observation. Natural Law Theory’s tenets include the defense of individual rights, the advancement of justice, the preservation of life, and the search for knowledge.

The natural law theory has drawn criticism, even though it has had a significant impact on how we view morality and ethics. The theory’s assumption that there is a universal human nature, which isn’t always the case, is one of its primary objections. Furthermore, others contend that the theory ignores changes in moral standards and cultural diversity.

By highlighting the significance of a social contract between people and the state, the social contract theory expands on the Natural Law Theory. The social contract is a freely chosen arrangement whereby people give up part of their rights in return for the safety and security offered by the government. The Natural Law approach emphasizes the significance of a few universal and objective moral standards that ought to direct the actions of both individuals and the state, laying the groundwork for the social contract.

Analyzing the social contract theory requires an understanding of natural law theory. The natural law theory underpins the social compact by highlighting the significance of a few objective, universal moral truths. The theory has been criticized, but it has also had a significant impact on how we view morality and ethics.

The natural law theory makes the case that reason may uncover certain natural laws that regulate human behavior. On the other side, the social contract theory contends that in order to live in a society that offers them security and safety, people must give up part of their personal liberties. Despite their seeming incompatibilities, these two ideas can be complementary in a variety of ways.

Consonance of the two theories

The following are some explanations of how the natural law theory and the social contract theory  interact-

• One approach to applying the natural law theory in society is through the lens of the social contract theory. Stated differently, the Social Contract’s codified norms and regulations are designed to mirror the inherent principles that dictate human conduct. Laws prohibiting theft and murder, for instance, are seen to represent the natural law that states every person has the right to life and property.
• The social contract theory  can be based on the natural law theory. The norms and guidelines that comprise the social contract can be established on the assumption that there exist natural laws governing human conduct. This can ensure that the social contract is not based on the whims of the powerful but rather on a set of universally applicable norms.
• Conflicts arising from the natural law theory can be resolved with the aid of the social contract theory. There may still be differences in the practical application of the concepts provided by the Natural Law Theory, despite the fact that they offer a framework for human behavior. The social contract theory  offers a framework for people to join together and create laws that represent their common ideals, which can help resolve these problems.

Regarding free speech, for instance, the natural law theory may contend that people have the freedom to express themselves, but this can run counter to the need to uphold social order and shield others from harm. People can unite via the Social Contract to create laws that strike a compromise between these conflicting interests, like outlawing hate speech while preserving open discourse in public forums.

Kant and human freedom

Kant attempts to systematize our shared moral intuitions in The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, his first work of moral philosophy, to provide us with a framework for resolving moral controversies, that is, situations in which our consciences or intuitions might not agree with others or speak clearly.

It is observed that, as far as the general consensus is concerned, goodwill is the only absolutely good thing in the universe. Health, wealth, and even happiness in general are not inherently good since they might be a source of criticism for an unbiased observer when combined with evil intent. When a bad guy triumphs and rides off into the sunset, relishing his victory, we don’t cheer him on. No, having goodwill or being deserving of happiness is more significant than simply being happy.

Kant summarizes his political theory in an article titled “Theory and Practice.” He states, “No one can compel me to be happy in accordance with his conception of the welfare of others,” once a civil state has been established to protect our rights. Each person is free to pursue happiness in any way they see fit, as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of others to pursue a similar goal that can be reconciled with everyone else’s freedom within a general, workable law. In other words, they must grant others the same right to enjoy themselves as they do.

As a result, Kant supports the law of equal freedom, often known as the “Non-Aggression Principle” by certain libertarians, which states that everyone should have the greatest amount of freedom to pursue happiness in accordance with everyone else’s similar freedom. This idea holds true not only in the natural world but also in governmental systems.

According to Kant, “the utmost inequality of the mass in the degree of its possessions, whether these take the form of physical or mental superiority over others, or of fortuitous external property and of particular rights (of which there may be many) with respect to others,” is perfectly consistent with the equal freedom of each subject in a civil state. 

Kant supports Locke’s theory of the social contract in the same essay. Only after the original contract has been approved by all parties can a legitimate state with the authority to rule arise. Any other action would be a violation of the rights of the non-consenters. Given the rarity of majority acceptance of the social compact throughout human history, Kant’s robust theory of individual rights positions us against the power of the state.

Kant’s moral theory supports incredibly robust individual liberties from compulsion. His theory appears to limit coercion to self-defense or the defense of others. Therefore, it would appear that his ideal form of government would be quite constrained and permit citizens’ creativity, initiative, and life experiments to run wild.

Kant does adopt certain peculiar stances regarding certain moral issues. He believes that there is never a right to fight an unjust sovereign; he has an unusual perspective on marriage as a form of mutual slavery; and he believes that lying is always bad. I think that when Kant addresses basic philosophical questions, he is at his most convincing.

Jus Gentium

Jus gentium, which means “law of nations” in Latin, refers to the rule that natural reason establishes for all men, as opposed to jus civile, or civil law that is unique to one state or people. The jus gentium was initially formulated by Roman attorneys and magistrates as an equitable procedure that applied to situations involving non-Roman citizens and foreign parties. The idea came from the Roman presumption that any universal system of law ought to be inherently fair and legitimate. They expanded the meaning to include any law that was inherently aligned with their sense of fairness. Over time, the phrase came to be associated with equity, or praetorian law. There is a divide in modern law between jus gentium publicum, or the set of rules governing the contact of states, and jus gentium privatum, or private international law, also referred to as conflict of laws.

Jus gentium is a legal code that has its roots in interethnic Roman law and incorporates the fundamental ideas that govern both domestic and international law. The main ideas of international law and customary law have been carried over from ancient law until the middle centuries, when they were founded, owing to the jus gentium. The imperative principles of international law today are derived from the majority of the general principles of the law of people. These general principles were developed by Roman jurists and included, above all, the principles of equality, justice, and humanism. These principles were reciprocated by the laws of European states and eventually evolved into general principles of national law, which in turn became the fundamental principles of international law. The European continent’s foundational concepts of international law, and eventually global international law, were greatly influenced by Jus gentium. Three primary components were identified in the framework of Roman law as jus civile, jus naturale, and jus gentium. 

Although jus gentium is typically the primary basis of international law, Article 38 of the UN Charter confirms that international law also includes widely accepted domestic law principles (jus civile) and general legal concepts (jus naturale). The principle of sovereignty, the principles of bona fide compliance, mutual courtesy (comitas gentium), the development of the principle of succession, the first principles of territorial space, and the principle of res judicata, or the principle of binding on the parties to a court decision, are all found in jus gentium. The root of the majority of procedural and technical doctrines is jus gentium.

Fuller and the Morality of Law

Most people agree that the core of the rule of law is encapsulated in Lon Fuller’s eight principles of legality. There is a view that the fundamental standards Fuller outlines for the rule of law, despite some contending that his requirements are insufficient. Therefore, Fuller’s narrative is an obvious place to start if you want to get a basic understanding of the rule of law. Eight conditions for the rule of law are listed by Fuller in the Morality of Law-

1. Laws must be broad, defining guidelines that exclude or allow particular types of activity.
2. Laws must also be made available to the public or widely promulgated. Publicizing laws guarantees that the public is aware of their requirements. 
3. Laws should be prospective in nature, dictating how people should conduct going forward as opposed to outlawing actions that have already taken place.
4. Laws ought to be unambiguous. It should be clear to the public what the laws require, allow, and forbid. 
5. Legislation cannot contradict itself. 
6. What one law allows, another law cannot forbid. Laws shouldn’t make impossible demands. 
7. Furthermore, the requirements that laws place on citizens should not alter too often. 
8. The wording of written statutes and the manner in which officials implement them should be consistent.

The eight requirements—publicity, non-retroactivity, clarity, non-contradiction, constancy, and congruity—define what must be in place for legislative actions to be considered lawmaking. “The enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules” is what Fuller defines as law. Lawmakers can affect individuals’ practical reasoning when they enact laws that uphold the eight tenets of the rule of law.

When considering what to do, citizens can take legal requirements and prohibitions into account. They are able to forecast the way judges will read and apply the law, which gives them the ability to create trustworthy expectations about the reactions that various acts will probably elicit. Their expectations of congruence will not be dissatisfied when the rule of law is implemented. When combined with the realistic expectation that other people would follow the law, these expectations serve to validate the notion that the law provides justification for citizens’ actions or inaction.

According to Professor Fuller, law is a specific method of establishing social order through enforcing norms that direct the conduct of people. It is the endeavor of governing human behavior by rules. Fuller contends that moral standards of fairness are the foundation of our legal system. Determining whether a collection of regulations qualifies as a legal system depends, in part, on the moral significance of the procedures that make up that system. He thinks that a law needs to pass a moral functional test in order to be considered a law in the proper sense. A rule or group of rules is not considered to be law if they do not fulfill this purpose.

Fuller divides the term “morality” into two distinct sets of elements while elucidating the concept. “Morality of duty” and “morality of aspiration” make up one set. Aspirational morality refers to a desirable standard of behavior for people who work to further their best interests. The morality of duty refers to the rules that people adhere to at a certain time and place in order to maintain society’s orderly operation.

Fuller refers to the “external morality of law” and the “internal morality of law” as the second set of moralities. The process of creating laws is affected by the internal morality of the legislation. It is possible to define the internal morality of the law as a morality of aspiration as opposed to a morality of duty. Additionally, the substantive rules of the law that are used when making decisions are referred to as the external morality of the law.

Fuller opposes the positivist interpretation of the law. He begs legislators to see that there are alternatives to relying solely on the law to achieve society’s goals. He thinks that once legislators understand this, they will be able to effectively use the law as a tool to control society. According to Fuller, not all directives with the authority to enforce adherence can legitimately be regarded as laws.

All eight factors should be taken into account by legislators when deciding whether or not a law is legitimately acceptable, according to Fuller. Despite being a natural law philosopher, Fuller differs from his contemporaries in that he does not think that some principles are generally true laws that regulate human behavior because they can be traced back to the instructions of a supreme deity. Law, according to Fuller, has terrestrial roots and applications. Man creates laws to serve the needs of humanity. Consequently, in order to achieve society’s goals through regulating human conduct, laws must have a single, overarching goal.

Fuller queries the possibility that substantive legal standards could be neutral, that is, unrelated to morality. It provides a negative response. He claims that, in order to further human goals, substantive laws must always be moral. A law ought to be adaptable enough to take into account how humans change over time. Furthermore, it is only feasible if the nature of man is taken into account. According to Fuller, the law ought to be utilized to unite people in order to promote their best interests.

Hart on Natural Law

Professor HLA Hart was a critical moral philosopher as well as a legal positivist. From the perspective of legal positivism, he says that laws do not always have to uphold moral standards. Although he acknowledges the tight connection between morality and the law, he does not think that the two are dependent on one another. He claims that one cannot evaluate the presence of a law based on its virtues or shortcomings. Regardless of our preferences, laws are a fact of life.

It is not necessary for a legal system to exist in order for it to uphold a set of minimal moral norms. It is not necessary for a legal system to be morally compliant in every way. 

Simply put, moral objections do not make a law invalid.

Hart does not dispute that morality has had a significant impact on the evolution of law, in contrast to other legal positivists. Hart agrees that morality and the law will inevitably collide. As a result, it becomes essential to make a distinction between what a law is and what it should be. Hart argues that legal interpreters ought to demonstrate the honesty or veracity of the law by focusing on what it actually says as opposed to the part of it that one would prefer it to say.

According to Hart, the fundamental components of law are the basic and secondary rules, two distinct categories of rules. Primary rules are those that establish legal obligations for citizens by way of duty-imposing regulations. The rules that give power and specify how the basic rules are to be acknowledged, altered, and decided upon are known as secondary rules.

One way to think of secondary rules is as rules regarding fundamental rules. The core of the legal system is composed of fundamental and secondary rules. The final rule that unites the legal system as a cohesive whole is the concept of justice, also known as the rule of recognition.

Hart recognizes the issue that could arise from imprecise wording in a statute’s statutory text, which he terms the “essential elements of the law.” Not every situation will necessarily fit neatly within the legal definition. Standard usage of the language may occasionally be insufficient to ensure that the law is applied correctly. These are referred to by Prof. Hart as the penumbra’s issues. Consequently, it becomes imperative to determine the meaning of a statute’s wording before applying legal principles to the particular facts of the case. Hart thinks that judicial interpretation is a simple method to address the penumbra’s issues. In resolving the penumbra’s issues, Hart discusses the essential convergence of morality and the law. When a moral determination is made regarding what the law should be, that is the criterion that, in some situations, renders a decision sound. In these situations, morality can play a significant role in determining cases in penumbra.

Finnis and the Restatement of Natural Law

Australian legal scholar John Finnis was born and raised in Adelaide and attended Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship. He teaches law at Oxford University at the moment. The 1980 book Natural Law and Natural Rights by Finnis is regarded as a foundational reaffirmation of natural law theory.

Finnis’s philosophy revolves around a set of seven essential “goods” for humanity.  These goods are-

1. Life Wisdom, in its own right
2. sociability and friendship
3. Play as an end in itself
4. Visual Experience
5. The capacity to make sound decisions about what is best for oneself and to carry them out is known as practical reasonableness.
6. Religion, or a relationship and involvement with the orders that transcend the particular person
7. The fundamental goods provide a rationale for our actions. Every worthwhile endeavor is worthwhile because it contributes to one or more fundamental goods.

Other virtues, such as humility or freedom, are only means to an end, or several ends, of the essential goods. Other driving forces behind behavior, including the desire for money gain or pleasure, are erroneous and driven more by instinct than by logic.

Both “there are infinitely many primes” and “these are the seven basic goods” are equally true. We can place the fundamental goods in “reality” in the same sense that math exists in reality since they are independent of human cognition. The fundamental goods are, of course, immaterial. Many of the concepts of theoretical reasoning are unprovable, including the reliability of deductive reasoning; they are-

• the induction principle
• the notion that reality and experience are equal
• the favoring of a straightforward explanation over a sophisticated one

These kinds of rules are meaningfully debatable and cannot be inferred from the principles of logic. However, you will be unable to pursue knowledge and make any progress at all if you reject a principle such as this one. Furthermore, just taking a quick look around will reveal the truth about these concepts.

The fundamental items are the same. They cannot be obtained from human nature’s tendencies, reason, or God’s law. However, if you reject them, you will never advance in the domain of practical reason, and you will never be able to decide what is best for your own life. Not only that, but it’s clear from the theoretical concepts alone that these products are fundamental. The seven fundamental goods are therefore obvious.

Here is where a distinction is crucial. It is untrue to say that everyone is instantly familiar with every theoretical rationality concept; a toddler might not comprehend a modus ponens argument. But any mature, educated individual is aware of these concepts. Finnis agrees that some people do not appreciate the fundamental goods, but he points out that they are mistaken.

Practical reason is one of the seven essential commodities. By making logical judgments that maximize your involvement in the other goods, such as selecting worthwhile tasks to work on, adopting moral courses of action, and so forth, you contribute to this good. To correctly participate in practical reasoning, you must meet nine prerequisites that are related to it. In the same manner that the necessities are obvious, so too are these requirements. The following nine tenets are:

1. Instead of living each day to the last, you ought to consider your life as a totality.
2. Certain products must naturally take precedence over others, but this should only ever be done for valid reasons. One of the fundamental goods should never be arbitrarily discounted.
3. Everybody is entitled to basic goods. To the extent that you are best suited to take care of yourself, you can be self-interested, but you should constantly consider the welfare of others.
4. It is important to avoid being fixated on a specific project and to maintain the viewpoint that the initiative is an extension of a fundamental good.
5. Not only should you not sit around repeating old behaviors, but you should actually work on projects and try to get better.
6. To maximize your benefits and minimize your costs, you should plan and quantify your activities. This will help you make the most efficient decisions.
7. Even if an action will indirectly advance another fundamental good, you should never take it in a way that directly undermines a fundamental good. For instance, you ought not to kill, even if doing so will obliquely save many lives in the future.
8. You ought to promote the community’s general welfare.
9. It is your conscience and common sense that should guide your actions, not the authority of others.

All individuals are subject to the same set of requirements and seven commodities. You use reason, the nine standards, and your own judgment to make judgments about how you will engage in the basic goods.

This system allows us a great deal of discretion. You have a few options when planning your day: you can go trekking, volunteer for disaster relief, attend a party, or listen to music. All of them are reasonable options in theory. While there are many equally correct options, some decisions, such as killing someone or being in an empty room all day, are incorrect.

The seven commodities do not stand in any particular order; rather, they are all equally fundamental. As a result, there is no one right act, even though certain actions are incorrect because they do not further a fundamental good. 

The difference between theoretical and practical reasons is crucial. In theoretical reasoning, two things must be wrong if they conflict. Two morally right actions that contradict one another can coexist for practical reasons. A person’s free will determines which action they will take.

In this sense, the nine needs and the seven goods provide the general framework and objectives but do not dictate the specifics of daily living or even significant choices like professional choice.

Murphy and Natural Law

It has been suggested by Walter Murphy that “the nature of the American Constitution requires recognition of a thick and powerful right to be let alone.” Furthermore, he thinks that society cannot exclude this right from the Constitution without completely reinterpreting it, not even by legally allowed measures like amendment. All things considered, the assertion that a right to privacy is protected by the Constitution is not especially shocking. Moreover, the assertion in Murphy’s instance, specifically, is supported by thirty years of research. When taken as a whole, this collection of writings stands out as one of the more fervent and admirably cogent additions to the body of work on judicial politics. 

As outlined in his numerous books and articles, Murphy argues that there is a right to privacy because he believes that academic critics who evaluate judges must also fairly adopt a judicial philosophy that has substantive implications for all constitutional decision makers. His argument is mainly pragmatic, supported by the argument that, in the realm of judicial politics, where numerous valid and conflicting claims are possible, it represents the greatest constitutional policy.

Murphy’s second point, which states that the Constitution’s protection of the right to privacy cannot be altered, is very different. This normative proposition moves the right to privacy’s justification from a political to a theoretical plane. Therefore, due to its theoretical ramifications, Murphy’s otherwise unexpected opinion that the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy begs for examination. He supports the right to privacy. Murphy’s privacy claim is problematic because it uses positivist consent theories and natural law interchangeably to explain the nature of the Constitution. This creates a conflict between the notion that the Constitution authorizes human rights and the notion that the presence of human rights authorizes the Constitution. Crucially, when viewed in isolation, neither of Murphy’s arguments offers an adequate explanation for the Constitution’s ongoing validity. The natural rights argument, on its part, rejects the possibility of lawful constitutional modification. 

Murphy’s opinion that the Constitution should be interpreted to uphold human dignity, as stated in “The Art of Interpretation,” was thus not based on any natural law theory. 

Murphy, being pragmatic, saw natural rights philosophy as merely a recurrent, rhetorical force in our constitutional history that judges need to consider and may even draw upon when developing their own theories of interpretation. Judges can use the Preamble and the Ninth Amendment as ready vehicles to transport theories of natural law into contemporary society, according to him.

Murphy noted several issues that arise when formulating interpretive strategies, one of which is the need to create a hierarchy among conflicting constitutional ideals in order to reconcile them. Among other things, he raised the prospect of claiming that some clauses in the Constitution cannot be changed in light of this hierarchy. Again, his suggested approach to presenting such an argument was more like a legal brief than a philosophical thesis. He proposed that the following could be contested: Since Constitutional amendments are laws, they are prohibited whenever the Constitution forbids Congress or the States from enacting any legislation, such as in the First Amendment (which is extended to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment). Murphy acknowledged that this argument had been made and is therefore “hardly fanciful,” but he did not assert that it is always true.

Murphy offers two main justifications for his conclusion that a wide right to privacy must be incorporated into the Constitution. The first argument, according to him, is predicated on “constitutional content.” The first claim he makes is that “constitutionalism” and “representational democracy,” two political ideas, are the foundation of the American Constitution, or perhaps even one of its components. Constitutionalism is the belief that individual liberty is the main purpose of the Constitution. The idea that the Constitution essentially incorporates a form of government based on popular sovereignty is known as representational democracy. Both of these subtexts, though they stand in contrast to one another, are essential to understanding the Constitution, or, in Murphy’s words, to transforming it from “the political version of a seed catalog” into something more. Put another way, the Constitution is a balancing act that uses the device of checks and counter-checks in both its philosophical outlook and its provisions for the organization of government. 

But when it comes to establishing the right to privacy, constitutionalism is unquestionably the more significant doctrine. Murphy asserts that the fundamental idea of constitutionalism is that rights are borne into society by citizens. “These liberties form a “zone of autonomy,” where “each individual should be immune from governmental regulation, even regulation that an overwhelming majority of society considers wise and just.” Therefore, the political philosophy of constitutionalism, which is a component of the Constitution, implies the right to privacy. Murphy also makes the argument that the principle of representational democracy implies the right to privacy. 

As straightforward as that, Murphy’s second argument is based on “constitutional function,” as he puts it. It starts with his dedication to the notion that the Constitution is a “binding statement of a people’s aspirations for themselves and their nation.” Put another way, the Constitution is the cornerstone of a moral society, in addition to being a charter for government. According to Murphy, “the notion of a people as free and autonomous as they can be in an interdependent world is and has been among the values, goals, and aspirations of U.S. society.” Therefore, Murphy contends that the Constitution must include a right to privacy.

Murphy believes that the Declaration of Independence, which he also considers to be a founding text, and the Preamble of the Constitution both demonstrate the “aspirational” nature of the Constitution. Murphy therefore really believes that the United States is governed by a constitution, which comprises the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of 1787 as amended, the two political philosophies already discussed, and perhaps more founding texts or concepts. This is not to argue that by reading his substantially extended Constitution word for word, we can grasp Murphy’s position. This argument essentially rejects the idea that the Constitution can be read at all, arguing instead that it is a continuous agreement, some of the evidence of which is found in written sources.

Murphy also gets the essence of natural law and the methods for discovering it from Locke. Humans possess natural sovereignty over their property, including their liberty, according to Locke. According to him, “man’s natural liberty is to be free from any higher power on earth, to have only the law of nature as his rule, and to not be subject to the will or legislative authority of man.“

Murphy says that “without controlling a core of physical and psychological space, without being able to share some aspects of our lives only with those whom we choose, we would be unable to define ourselves, to develop our talents and personalities, or to live with dignity or any autonomy… Any meaningful theory of constitutionalism demands a wide ambit for a right to privacy,” suitably updating Locke’s worldview to account for our concern with mental self-possession. In summary, freedom is a natural human right. Murphy is at a loss for words, even if his statements suggest that this right is logically deducible in some way. Like Locke, who merely asserts that everyone may detect the law of nature by using reason, he settles for the notion that it is self-evident.

Conclusion

Natural law is a crucial standard for already-existing positive law as well as an ideal for legislation to achieve. On the other hand, natural law is essentially a skeleton law or framework law. Usually, it doesn’t provide us with a specific standard that can be applied right now to decisions made in the complex circumstances of real life. For example, it doesn’t specify which of the numerous possible property law formulations is correct in theory. Natural law does not impose either the capitalistic or feudal systems of property.

However, it assesses the fairness of every single property system that is now in place. Furthermore, natural law makes it obvious that a social structure in which the so-called “iron law of wages” governs the labor market is unfair and inequitable. It does not, however, condemn the wage contract itself or the socioeconomic order of which it is such an integral component. Furthermore, natural law informs us that any form of government, even one adorned with democratic trappings, that disregards the fundamental rights of the individual and the family is tyrannical and may, therefore, be rightfully opposed. Finally, natural law prohibits the compromise of a small nation’s independence for the “security” of a large power, even though it does not state that the Security Council of the United Nations is good and efficient in its actual form. It is conceivable for natural law to regulate the acquisition and use of political power itself because of its unchanging nature, which sets it apart from the dynamic historical positive law and serves as both the ideal standard for legislators and the crucial benchmark for current legislation.

Justice forms the cornerstone of the law. “Truth grants or refuses the highest crown to the products of positive legislation, and they draw from the truth their true moral force“. However, truth is adherence to reality. In the end, the truth and the just are one, just as the real and the true are one. Legitimacy is a given. The phrase “And the truth shall make you free” applies to the community of men under the law in this deep sense of the union of justice and truth. To be truly free is to be subject to the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on Natural Law Theory

Who is considered the founder of natural law jurisprudence?

Aristotle, who is credited with creating the natural law school, provided this philosophy with a strong foundation on which to grow organically.

What is the rule of law?

The concept of the rule of law suggests that everyone is subject to the law, including the highest ranking official, and that this includes the making of laws, how they are applied, and the connections between them. Because rulers are bound by the same laws as their subjects, the government is also bound by these laws. The idea of equality before the law, which maintains that no “legal” person shall enjoy privileges that are not extended to others and that no person shall be immune from legal punishments, is so closely related. 

Furthermore, the implementation and decision-making of legal regulations by diverse regulatory authorities must be unbiased and uniform in comparable circumstances, without regard to the class, status, or relative power of the parties involved. Furthermore, some kind of legal framework for pushing officials to follow the law needs to be in place for those proposals to have any real chance of succeeding.

What are the seven basic goods of the natural law?

The seven “basic goods” defined by the natural justice system are– 

1. Life,
2. Reproduction, 
3. Education, 
4. Worship, 
5. Social Life, 
6. Avoid Offense, and 
7. Shun Ignorance.

How did the circumstances influence the ideas and thoughts of Hugo?

Hugo was born and raised in the Renaissance and Reformation eras. As such, he developed his thesis to challenge conventional views of natural law and positive morality while simultaneously advocating for state autonomy and unity following the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia, which put an end to a protracted thirty-year conflict between Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands.

What is the metaphysics of creation?

Metaphysical explanations for the universe’s genesis might differ greatly based on the particular philosophical or theological framework that is being examined. For instance, the universe’s formation may be explained in terms of transcendent creators or divine will within some theological traditions.

Kerr contends that the foundation of Aquinas’ philosophical theology is his metaphysics of creation, in which God is understood as the ultimate source of everything that exists.

What is Grotius’ concept of natural law?

Grotius held that morality and reason, as well as universal laws, governed human behavior and that these principles were known as natural law. He maintained that natural law served as the foundation for morally righteous action and was superior to positive or man-made law.

What is meant by “ex debito justitiae”?

Ex debito justitiae is a Latin phrase that means “from or as a debt of justice.” It describes an action taken as a matter of right and in compliance with the requirements of justice. Ex debito justitiae is the legal principle that something is owed out of fairness or justice. Because it is just and fair, it is something that must be done. It’s similar to knowing that you have to return something you borrowed from a friend because it’s the right thing to do.

What is meant by Austin’s utilitarianism?

the greatest focus on his own day. According to Austin, the law of God as it is revealed in the scriptures is the main source of morality. Austin held the same belief as Thomas Aquinas, that there is a portion of God’s rule that is hidden and must be found by reason. Reason leads us to the principle of utility since it is evident that God desires the maximum enjoyment for all of his creatures. 

According to Austin, we must deduce the laws of God, which are neither written nor disclosed in any way, from the likelihood that our activities will contribute to the happiness of all people, or even from human behavior patterns that will either raise or decrease that total. He thought that the key to finding divine pleasure was determining one’s utility. 

What does Adam Smith say about natural law?

The father of modern economics is widely acknowledged to be Adam Smith. He defined a “system of natural liberty” as the foundation of true riches in his seminal work, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” published in 1886. Many of Smith’s theories, such as his three natural laws of economics, are still taught today-

• The law of self-interest states that people labor for their own good.
• The Law of Competition purports that competition motivates people to produce better products.
• The Law of Supply and Demand states that in a market economy, enough commodities would be produced at the lowest feasible price to meet demand.

What was propounded by the historical school?

According to the Historical School of Jurisprudence, laws should change to meet the changing demands of society because they are made by people. Individuals are the best people to know what they need. The Historical School of Jurisprudence is based on human norms and habits, which evolve in response to changing demands.

The school disapproved of the notion that judges make laws and that laws have a divine origin. The historical school disapproved of judges’ and jurists’ or law-givers creative involvement in the creation of laws and banned ethical thought from jurisprudence. One of the proponents of the historical school was Fredrick Pollock, who thought that judges and jurists had no business dealing with morality.

Who are the thinkers of the historical school?

Following are the Jurists of the historical school of jurisprudence-

• Montesquieu, 
• Savigny, 
• Sir Henry Maine, 
• Georg Friedrich,
• Puchta, and 
• Windscheid

What is the debate between HLA Hart and Lon Fuller?

Since Hart is a positivist, he dismisses the idea that morality and the law must be related. Although he acknowledges that morality and the law are closely related, he does not deny that morality has had a significant impact on the evolution of the law. He does not, however, think that they are dependent on one another. He believes that a distinction should be made between what the law ought to be and what it should be as a result.

On the other hand, Fuller, being a naturalist, believes that rules may be used to control conduct in order to create social order. According to him, the morally grounded standards of justice are the source of our legal systems. He contends that legislation must pass a certain moral function test in order to be deemed legitimate. He believed that morality and the law are closely related and that the legitimacy of the law stems from its alignment with moral principles.

References

• https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-social-political/ 
• https://udrc.lkouniv.ac.in/Content/DepartmentContent/SM_d54d2a28-a359-4351-838d-9148482468f8_30.pdf 
• https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/3-2-the-laws-of-nature-and-the-social-contract 
• https://lumenpublishing.com/journals/index.php/ejlpa/article/view/2337 
• https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1787&context=faculty_scholarship 
• http://www.grkarelawlibrary.yolasite.com/resources/LLM-LT-1-Yamini.pdf 
• https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&filename=8&article=1002&context=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional 
• https://www.tutorialspoint.com/hugo-grotius-the-founder-of-international-law 
• https://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/99015853.pdf 
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285484700_Immanuel_Kant_-_Justice_as_Freedom
• https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=089119105064004126102020109076093124022046039021042055064085116096098074117111108028063033000008109016026092115024100018115092006041062046036011080024119123127098091029030021101084120020006119064106112028089030102003121096127030022018083112081069123025&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE  
• https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2924&context=facpub 
• https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3571&context=ilj#:~:text=Fuller%20finds%20in%20all%20law,will%20tend%20to%20be%20alike. 
• https://rsthomastallis.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/6/7/23674516/johnfinnis.pdf 
• https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/judicial-law/hart-and-fuller-debate-9262.php 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.