58

Chapter

lt stands to reason

...

Development of natural law

thinking

59

man by some Great Architect beyond the skies. We do not find that the heavens open and a hand comes through clouds, passing down to mankind a tablet of stone on which the truths of natural law are inscribed: the truths of natural law are not revealed truths. The truths of natural law are ascertainable by man though the exercise of the reason with which he is by nature endowed. The truths of natural law are determined by observation followed by reflection: What are man's natural ends? What orderirg of society best enables these ends to be achieved? Despite its transcendence, man discovers the content of natural law for himself. God does not tell him - having given man reason, He does not need to.

|uareness, roundness, sharpness, honour, cour"Se , beauty, equality, rrrch had a permanent and unvarying existence, vfr existence that is irrrlependent of the fact that certain things or actions in the world as wr: know it reflect the qualities themselves. This is Plato's doctrine of
s(

lrt' described as natural lawyers. But in the philosophies of each we st't'strands thatfind a place in natural law thinking as itwas later to r lt'velop. To Platoa can be traced that strand of natural law thinking that t'r'{,rards values as having an eternal existence and an eternal veracity. f 'lrtto went further than this. What for us are abstractions - redness,

@,.Plato,s.forrrrs,afetranscendenta|archetype'th't."i't

Distinction between natural law and man-made law

This brings us to the final characteristic of natural law thinking: the distinction between natural law and man-made law. The natural lawyer recognises the existence of (and the need for) man-made law but regards this as inferior to natural law. Further, if man-made law conflicts with natural law, man-made law is deemed to lack validity. This, then, is the doctrine of natural law. We have sought to describe the doctrine in its fullest form. And we have described the doctrine in the abstract - at no time in the history of European

thought has arry philosopher or theologian proposed a view of natural law entirely in the form here expressed. Our description of the doctrine has been a composite one putting ideas that in practice formed part of various thinker's philosophies. But it has perhaps been useful to give at the outset an idea of the shape of the doctrine under consideration.

jtrrisprudence. (Used in this sense it should, of course, be <listinguished from the word used in the everyday sense of a striving
Ior perfection.
)

irrclependently of the physical world, independently of the human rr r ind, independently of space or time. Thus there is a 'form' of beauty, , rl'which things on earth which have the quality of beauty are mere rrranifestations. Qualities such asjustice and truth exist in their own r ight. A11 men can do is to attempt to reproduce them. To reproduce t lrese qualities men must seek knowledg" of the eternal truths, a quest llrat is man's finest endeavour. So, also, just as distinctfrom the fact llrat the total of trvo sets of nvo bottles can be counted to four bottles, otrtside time, outside space, ouside human thought, two plus two cquals four. (Is this not so?) The school of thought that subscribes to such a view is termed irlealism, referring to the notion that the ideg of a thing has its own t:xistence. The word will be met at varffi places ii a stud,y of

One does not have to believe in Plato's the ory of forms (one does rtot have to be an idealist) to subscribe to the doctrine of natural lirw. Idealism nevertheless has played a k.y part in the doctrine's

lristory

Development of natural law thinking

The ancient world

- Greece

The few sentences above can give no hint of the scale and the rnajesty of Plato's philosophy. The full impact of his work can be rrnderstood only by reading the work in which the theory of forms is lrrincip ally set out, The Republic. Whether one can. learn the truths that, for Plato, have their own eternal existence and, if so, how this is to be done, are questions that are discussed atvarious places in Plato's himself believed it was possible for man to attain knowledg. of the external truths, for example, 'goodness', JustiCe ', 'courage'. One who so believes, it will be recalled, is termed in
Dialogues.s Plato

Two giants bestride the philosophy of the ancient world - indeed over philosophy to our own day: Plato and Aristotle.3 Neither ca:n

lr

The works on each occupy whole libraries. W K C Guthrie A History of Greek Philosophy stands out among modern works. Also of value are the introductions to the Penguin editions of the two authors' works.

4 5

c 427-348 BC.
E-g The Meno.

60

Chapter

5 lt stands to reason ...

Development of natural law

thinking

61

philosophy a'cognativist'. A natural lawyer is a cognativist. (But not ill .ognativists necessarily subscribe to the doctrine of natural law.) Since for Plato the forms of 'goodness', 'virtue','honesty'were

eternal and immutable, they constituted moral principles of universal and timeless validity existing above and unaffected by
changirg human attitudes or beliefs, moral principles by reference to which all human actions and views must be judged. Aristotle6 did not subscribe to Plato's theory of forms. But there was an element in his thinking that contributed a further strand to what was to become part of natural law doctrine. Aristotle was concerned with the world as he saw it existing around him. He was a zoologist, in particular amarine zoologist, with an acute observation of the minutest details of organisms observable by the human eye. From his studies of the natural world he became conscious of the fact that natural phenomena were in a state of perpetual change - the child growing into an adult; the seed growing into a plant. There was always progress. The acorn developed into the oak tree. The oak tree was what it was the acorn's nature to develop into. The oak tree was the acorn's predetermined end. The oak tree was the fulfilment of the progression that the acorn had started. Throughout the living world, Aristotle saw that, in the birth and growth of animals and plants,
the earlier stages always lead up to a final development. Yetwe should not think of this end as a termination. The process is constant. There is always potential for further change: in everything there is a potenti ahq striving to reach a further stage of actuality. Thus, for Aristotle the universe is dynamic, always engaged in

by ,,rrrpletion of associations existing by nature, every polis exists from associations earlier the rrrrtrre, having itself the same quality,as move and the rvlrich it grew]tt i, the end to which those associations ,rrrtllre, of things consists in their end or consummation; for what
:

x
L

the process of becoming, of moving towards an end immanent within itself from the start. The philosophy that everythitg that exists has a predetermined end is term.d t"l."l"qu (from the Greek teleos, end, and logos, rule or principle). Aristotle's teleology extended beyond the individual phenomena of the natural world to the activities of creatures within it, including human beings. For Aristotle, the highest form of human society lay
in the Greek city state
(a polis) . It was the polis

Did Aristotle w.rld. to the doctrine of ,rut rrul law as it later emerged. In chapter so. doing r:rke this step? At one pointhe seems close to the nature discusses Aristotle h of the lr{ichomacheanbthics,B in which natural one p9liticaljustice, of sorts two 'There are ,l'iustice, he says: same validity the has is thatwhich natural The i.gal. rrrd the other is that (,verywhere and do., not depend upo' acceptance; ,h." legal indifferently, uttother oi form wSich in the first place can iake ottb ransom for a lrtrt which, once iaid down, is decisive: eg that the sacrificed of war shall be one mina, or thati goat shallbe are of regulations all not two sheep ... Some hold the view thit .^d 'risoner immutable are laws natural rhis kind on the ground that whereas both here and ;rnd have the same validity everywhere (as fire burns But this arevariable. ofjustice notions persia), that see can they irr Among sense. a in true c:ontention is not true as stated, although it is in our but all; at change-s tt.u.t rhe gods, indeed,justice presumably is everything law, natural as thing a such is world, althougn inere some and nature subject to change; but still some things ult- so by that among thing, of ror-t what see to easy is it and not, rrre -tho1e, legal is but not, is wfiat and nature :rdmit of being otheriir., is so by convention and and conventional ... Rules ofjustice established by

HL:#l :1'"'" the fl:xHr#:':* i,'ffirui-ilJ: teleologi-c{ view of Aristotle's from short step
It seems but
a

o*ha'l I J

on the ground of expedieicy rrray be -compared to standard and corn trades measures; because the measures used in the wine wholesale and the in larger ulr are not everywhere equal: they natural but not are that lawi Similarly trade. smaller in the retail forms of man-made are not the same everywhere, because

that provided the society

in which man could achieve his culminating fulfilment. Thus from the start of organised human society, from its most primitive forms, through the various stages of agricultural existence to the building of cities, and the creating of political societies such as that at Athens, mankind was progressing towards that which had been its end from the beginnirg. In his Potitic.s,T Aristotle says, 'Because it is the

is only government are not the same either; bnt everywh.Tt.there best" is which that namely one natural form of government, a In this purruge Arlstotle seems to be on the P-o1nt of declaring element The doctrine that we can recognise as one of natural law. he stops short, of natural law thinking can readily be detected, but we (looking point the reaching or veers on to another"track before waiting are later) come to was l9t' back, and knowing what against In another pla"ce Aristotle says: 'If the written law tells on insist and law, our case already we must appeal to the universal
Translated J A K Thomson, Penguin classics edition'

6 384-322 BC. 7 Book II, Chapter 4. Translated, Sir Ernest Barker.

62

Chapter

lt stands to reason ...

Development of natural law

thinking

63

ordinance or convention. Brit nowhere doEr n" dwell on the matter. TI If were able to askAristotle 'should man-made be of kind
a that enable man to achieve his natural ends?' perhaps Aristotle would pause' puzzled by so time wastirg u questiorr, on to something of interest - why rultr rits from shrug and pass clouhs, *hy

aldjustice.' Frere also we have a hint of natural law thinking, although ii has been suggesred rhat he is here giving a rip to the practising advocate ruili., than expressing anything fundamental to his views. It seems that Aristotle accepted that there is a natural and universalright and wroxg , apartfrom anyhuman
we laws

a greater equity

rlrcy mean is this: throughout our lives we ought invariably to aim .rt rrrorally right courses of action , ..."' 'lndeed this idea - that one must not injure anybody else for

centipede has so many legs.

no mortal man begot them, nor will forgetfulness ;y$ Or, them to sleep.' In Plato's idealism, in Aristotle's teleology, in the Greek notion of a law higher than that of men, we can seeJtrand.s that were later, with other elements, to form the full doctrine of natural law.

pitted himself against rhe will of the Gods? In Sophocles,s Antigone, Antigone said to Creor, of an edict made by him, that she did not 'deem yoyr proclamations so mighty that you, a mortal, ';;;;;;, conld overthrow the iure unwritten laws 5r th. Gods'. i; Tyrannus, the Chorus speaks of 'larys ... ?ppointed on hi.gh, brought to life in the clear air ol heaven, whos. atir"r ir or;il;, alone, for

man

Perhaps for the Greeki of his time rhe notion rhar higher laws existed than those of man needed no ,p..iul mention. Were the Gods not higher than men? What dire results did not ensue if

un(,'s own profit - is not only natural law, an international valid in the statutes which lrr irrciple: the same idea is also incorporated nrtlividual communities have framed for their national purposes. l'lrt: whole point and intention of these statutes is that one cttrzen slurll live safely with another.'13 '.. . the finest and noblest characters prefer a life of dedication tr r rr life of self-indulgence; and one rnay conclude that such men r onform with nature and are therefore incapable of doing harm to
tt
r

t:ir fellow men.'14

'So everyone ought to have the same purpose to identify the

puny

ir

Irurnan society will completely collapse. But if nature prescribes (as slrc does) that every human being must help every other human lrt'ing, whoever he is,just precisely because they are all human beings, r lrt:n - by the same authority - all men have identical interests. Having i<lentical interests means thatwe are all subject to one and the same llw of nature: and, that being so, the very least that such a law enjoins is that we must not wrong one another.'15 '. . . neglect of the common interest is unnatural, because it is

terest of each with the interest of all. Once men grab for themselves,

rrrrjust nature's
i r r terest.'16

law promotes and coincides with the common

The Stoics
The next steps in the history of the doctrine are to be found in the writings of certain of the authors who form what has come to be termed the stoic school of philosophy. Stoicism held sway from the lifetime of its found er zeno 1a,rri"i rhe third century b.for. chrisr) down to about the fourth centur! AD. Ir was rhus th;;.-.;iil; philos"ply during ,h: greater parr of the Roman Republic and Empire' The contrlbution of the'Stoic school of philosophy may be represented by the writings of Ciceroe (who alihough not fully a Stoic.*utjy*pathetic to una reflected many stoic vieivs), sene c2,70 ' and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.l t In Cicero's work On Duties thefollowing passages occur. ,Besides, the Stoics' ideal is to live consistently witi'nature. I suppose what
10 c4BC-AD65.
1

'Not that we possess arry clear-cut, tangible images to show us what true, authentic law andJustice really look like! We only have otrtline sketches. And the extent to which we allow ourselves to be guided even by these leaves a great deal to be desired. For at least rhey have the merit of derivation from the finest models - those which have been vouchsafed to us by nature and by truth.'17
'For there is an ideal of human goodness: nature itself has stored :rnd wrapped this up inside our minds. Unfold this ideal, and you will straigh taway identify the good man as the person who helps everyb"dt he can, and, unless wrongfully provoked, harms none.'18 In his letters Seneca wrote: 'You ask what fis particularly man's]. It is spirit, and the perfection of his reason in that spirit. For man is

106-43 BC.

Emperor, 161-180 AD.

15 Ibid, Part III. 16 lbid, Part fV. L7 Ibid, Part VII.

1B Ibid, Part VIII.

l3 Ibid, Part III. | 4 rbid.

12 Part II. Translated M Grant, Penguin Classics edition.

64

Chapter

lt stands to reason ...

Development of natural law

thinking

65

'What has the philosopher ini.siigated? Whar has the philosopher.Pt"ysht to light? In rhe firsr rrurh and narure [1u.., (having, unlike the rest ofthe animal world, followed" nature with more than i.r:t u p-uT of eyes, things slow ro grasp divinity); and secondly, u rule of life, in which he has bro.tgf,t Hie into line with things universal.'20 In the work that has become known as hrs Med,itations, Marcus Aurelius wrote: 'If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reasorr, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore , that this reason speaks ,rL l.r, universally to us all with its "thou shalt" or "thou shalt iot". So then there is a worldlaw; which in turn means that we are all fellowcitizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world. is a single ctt\/.,zr . 'Th. purpose behind each thing's creation determines its development; the development points Io its final state; the final state gives the clue to its chief advantage and good; therefore the chief good of a rational being is fellowihip wii-tr his neighbours for it has been made clear long ago that feliowship is the behind [.rrpose our creation.'22
'Injustice is a sin. Nature has constituted, rational beings for their own mutual benefit, each to help his fellows accordiri to their worth, and in no wise to do them hurt; and to contravene her will is plainly to sin against this eldest of all rhe deities. Unrruthfulness, created

a rational animal. Man's ideal state is realised when he has fulfilled the P,ryose for which he was born. And what is it that reason d.emands of him? Something very easy - that he live in accordance with his own nature. Yet this is turned into something difficult by the mad.ness that is universal-among men; we push onelnother into vices. And how tu| P!9p1e be called bac\ ,o spiritual well-beingwhen no one is rrying to hold them back and the ciowd is urging th'em on?,le

'[n

wh

at I do, I am to do it with reference to the service of

nurrrkind. In what befalls me, I am to accept it with reference to the gor ls, and to that universal source from which the whole close-linked r lutin of circumstance has its issue.'25 From these passages it will be seen that those who adhered to rlrc Stoic school added flesh to the bones of natural law. Tolerance, lorgiveness, compassion, fortitude, uprightness, sinceriry, honesty : these were the qualities that the Stoics believed that natural law rt'rluired of men. These were the qualities to which reason dictated

tlritt man should aspire in order that he might live in accordance with what nature had ordained. If we were to single out Stoic thinking's principal contribution to the evolution of the doctrine of natural law, it would perhaps be i ts universality. Stoics saw mankind as one brotherhood. They looked outside the city state, outside the Empire and saw the whole of-the human race as being bound and united by the brotherly love that the precepts of natural law enjoined.

Christianity
'fhe parallels between the tenets of Stoicism and the teaching of
Christ come readily to mind. But Christianity offered an advantage rrot made available by Stoicism or arry of the other religions competing to fiIl the place left by the decline of the old state religion of Rome. Stoicism taught that men should love one another, since this was in accord with nature and thus was man's duty. Christianity taught-'Love one another', and it added'and if you do, there is a bonus - life everlasting.' For the Stoic, death was the end. The only reward for living a good life was to be able to die in the knowledge that one had done one's duty. For the Christian the reward was Heaven, coupled with satisfaction of kno*irg that the sinner (amongwhom no doubtwere numbered one's enemies) would suffer the eternal torments of Hell. Christianity offered a carrot. The teaching of Christ provided a code of conduct, but not a comprehensive theology. The creation of the latter was the

beings. Truth is but another name for this Nature, the original creator of all true things.'23 ending
'Nature always has an end in view; and this aim includes a thing,s as much as its beginning or its d.urati or^.,z4

too, is a sin, and against the same goddess. For Nature is the nature of Existence itself; and existence connotes the kinship of all

20 Letter XC. 2L Meditations Book 4, 4. 22 Ibid, Book 5, 16. 23 Ibid, Book 9. 24 Ibid, Book B, 20.

19 Letter XLV. Translated R Campbell, Penguin Classics edition.

accomplishment of the Fathers of the early church, principally St Augustine, St Ambrose and St Gregory. Having been born into the Roman world it was natural that these men should reflect in their writings aspects of the philosophies of Greece and Rome that could be enlisted to give intellectual support to the teachings of the new church. 25 Ibid, Book 8,23.