The Laws of Nature - Essay Example

The Laws of Nature Introduction Undoubtedly, human beings are the most sophisticated form of life on earth. They are capable of doing several outstanding feats, but a single attribute separating from another life on earth is their ability to have construct reasoning and rationalization. Due to this, human beings have been able to form a society in which their activities can be judged either right or wrong1. This phenomenon is referred to as morality, and its existence is only in human beings society. Before human beings were able to create order in the society and be able to judge what is right and wrong, natural laws were existing; they are something that were created divinely before the existence of humanity. These laws form the backbone of the moral structure of the society hence can supersede any law made by man2. Natural laws Natural laws are also referred to as the laws of nature. They are universal since they were there before the existence of human beings, hence, determined by nature. Classically, natural laws refer to using construct reasoning in analyzing the nature of human either personal or social to deduce any rules that are binding on moral behavior from it. Natural laws and positive laws are laws put into construct in a certain society, state or political community. Natural laws can be put to forth to criticize decisions of the judiciary on whether the law states, but not in criticizing the best interpretation of the law itself3. Even though, many a times, natural laws are always confused with common laws but the two are different and distinct. Natural law is a view that a given set of values or rights is universally cognizant by virtues of human nature or human reasoning and by that inherent. On the other hand, common laws are the legal tradition where certain human values and rights are cognizable legally by virtue of articulation or judicial recognition. The theories of natural laws have however exercised a great influence on the English common laws development and have been featuring the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Richard hooker, Thomas Hobbes among other philosophers4. Classical natural law - There are indeed some valid standard and truth of human rights and conducts in philosophy as stated by Plato. In his writing, Plato found out that by nature, naturally, both the selfish and the strong should prevail over those who are weak and weaken themselves by care for other people or promises or responsibilities5. These standards go beyond just setting individual's psyche in place and order, and entails establishing as well as maintaining a good order with other people. Justice in soul, indeed in the entire make up of a certain person, is the source, mirror, and is for this reason reflected in the entire society. The nature of the human individual “writ large” and vice versa is the nature of the political community6. Therefore, the natural laws are the standards by which humans use to judge a bad human being. The reason classical natural laws do not reduce is that in its debates with superstitions that are prescientific and with sophistication reductions of might from right, it is clear about the irreducibility of each other of orders. Nonetheless, it is clear from the traditions that an individual can clearly affirm the human beings equality or the binding forces and universality of human rights. Unless an individual acknowledges that there is something wrong about individuals, which differentiates them radically from other creatures, that are sub-rational, and which, prior to any acknowledgement of human status, is intrinsic then they will understand the facts about reality of every individual7. Modern natural laws- Modern in this case means contemporary. These are the laws that are used in the society today. However, nearly every individual today is willing to call his or her work natural law regards him or herself as representing and developing the classical tradition. In addition, they tend to reject the characteristics tenets of the “modern” traditions that emerge in the 1600s. This set aside self-consciously some of the basic elements of the classical tradition that are being esteemed by the new classical theorists today8. Several people in the society have had a different interpretation of nature. Should this be the case in the society if asserted by natural laws theory, the moral law of human nature will be knowable by natural human reasoning. Despite the existence of natural laws, human beings are not justified in any way to claim the development of the natural propensities. Critics of the natural law state that it is doubtful9. However, the inherent nature of the sapiens establishes behaviors in-laws for human beings in a similar manner it may establish laws of behaviors for animals. This is difficult especially because the environment that is through deliberate and non-deliberate conditioning, education and training shapes much of the behaviors of human. The behaviors of humans may solely be reliant upon the environment that an individual has been exposed to including education, social classes, upbringing hence this opposes the theory of natural laws10. The criticisms of natural laws are sound in the context of human behaviors. Natural laws are considered to be in existence for humans, and they supersede any human law. They are superior to humans, and as a result, humans cannot change them. Therefore, we expect that human beings should be born with the laws inherently, but this is not the case. Many a times, most of the human behaviors seem to be acquired and not inherently bone with them. Over many years, man has developed the habit of acquiring new behaviors within the environment and not through the precepts of natural laws11. Reference list Yong, A., 2008. Natural laws and divine intervention: What difference does being pentecostal or charismatic make? In Zygon. pp. 961–989 Balashov, Y. V., 1992. On the evolution of natural laws. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 43, pp.343–370. Burroughs, S.M. & Tebbens, S.F., 2001. Upper-truncated Power Laws in Natural Systems. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 158, pp.741–757. Carroll, J.W., 2005. Natural Laws in Scientific Practice. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71, p.240. Hart, H.L.A., 1955. Are there any natural rights? The Philosophical Review, 64, pp.175–191. Hasnas, J., 2005. TOWARD A THEORY OF EMPIRICAL NATURAL RIGHTS. Social Philosophy and Policy, 22, pp.111–147. Loewer, B., 2007. Laws and Natural Properties. Philosophical Topics, 35, pp.313–328. Mumford, S., 2000. Normative and Natural Laws. Philosophy, 75, pp.265–282. Swoyer, C., 1982. The nature of natural laws. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 60, pp.203–223. Yong, A., 2008. Natural laws and divine intervention: What difference does being pentecostal or charismatic make? In Zygon. pp. 961–989.  Read More