LAW121 - Natural Law Theory

What constitutes law and why do most people, today, unconsciously obey it? In this lecture, we will examine natural law theory with a view to understanding the relationship between law and morality.

Natural law theorists assert that humans possess an intuitive understanding of what is moral and what is immoral, what is right and what is wrong. From a natural law perspective, this understanding is embodied in a universal code of moral principles to which all humans must abide. Formal laws, the kind that you and I deal with everyday, are merely meant to formalize the moral principles we already recognize. If the law champions these morals, then it must be obeyed; if not, then it must be ignored.

But morality is subjective, meaning that people might disagree over what is right or wrong. Should marijuana be illegal? What about homosexuality? Prostitution? How do we determine which laws are moral and which are not? Which to obey and which to ignore?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Natural law theory
• Law & Society
• University of Auckland
• Mohsen al Attar

[apd4258]

(cont.) But if you build it using the laws of architecture then you will have a building that will stand the test of time. The same goes for the natural law. If you have a society that doesnt have the natural law or any law you will have anarchy and if you have a society that has laws that dont follow natural law then you will have a less free society. Like someone said before me, it is the universal rule of morality and the baisic structure of a free society.

[apd4258]

Ive never thought of natural law in the way this man describes it. He says natural law is bound by morality but ive always thought of natural law being the baisic structure to a free society. If it was bound by morality then it would be constantly changing because morality changes with the times and opinions of ppl. But natural law doesnt change. Its just like the laws of architecture. If you try and build a building not following the laws of architecture then the building will likely fall...

[LexNaturalis1982]

Natural law IS the universal rule of morality. Religious morality and personal morality are subjective. Natural law morality is objective. You have a right to your life, liberty, and property, however, you have not the right to harm the lives, liberties, or property of others. Thats natural law. It does not contradict itself in any form or manner.

[LexNaturalis1982]

The seatbelt example is pure fallacy.You cant divert from natural law through the use of the property of others to subsidize healthcare against their will, and then, turn around and say that if you let people have the freedom to do what they want with themselves(seatbelts)that will lead to an increased tax burden. Under natural law, to take property from one man to subsidize anything is a violation of the law.Therefore, his example is to violate natural law in order to justify another violation.

[SamuelDMorgan]

The part where he talks about the seat belt is a perfect argument AGAINST healthcare.

[SpankinMusic]

@Scottles293 Ultimately, the issues are so very much more complex than the way you have framed them. But yes a part of the struggle lies between universal access to healthcare versus financial expedience.

[Scottles293]

if we evolved utlimately through survival of the fittest, reaching a point where moral law is all about protecting the weak/unfit makes absolutley no sense. in a country like America where u are trillions of dollars in debt, yet you still are pouring money into healthcare for the elderly/physically fit, wouldnt it make more sense to putting money into programs that are going to increase human longevity, not just take care of the old//sick/unfit that are ultimately holding the rest of u back?????

[BOP0071]

i LIKED THIS VIDEO... THIS LECTURER IS GOOD.. helped me quite a bit with nat law prt.. any continuation of this topic??? if so plz upload... thank u!!