I.

Labels

Teleology, from the Greek words telos (end) and logos (discourse), is the study of design or purpose. In
philosophy, it is the science or doctrine that attempts to explain the universe in terms of ends or final causes, believing that all things
are designed for or are directed toward a final result, and that that inherent purpose or final cause exists in nature. It is therefore
grounded on the argument that there is a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction in nature.1
II.

Natural Law Basis

The teleological concept of law is based on the natural law philosophy, the natural law, as was defined by Plato and Aristotle,
is a discipline to which human conduct and relations must conform in order to realize both the individual and the common good.
Accordingly, it is also defined as the universal discipline of virtue in the exercise of their rights, in the performance of their obligations,
in the observance of rules, and the preservation of order and unity. Thus, it is based on the idea that there is a very present bond or
relationship existing between positive law and natural law, hence, for the teleologists, the natural law provides for a magnanimous
influence in shaping the concept of law than any other idea. In addition, they consider the natural law as the most potent force in the
development of legal institutions and legal concepts, by which, it is said that, it is upon the precepts of the natural law that the
completeness of the legal order can be achieved. For that matter, the teleological school of jurisprudence believes that a good legal
order can be deduced from the natural law, thus making the law universally valid for all people. 2
The Greek Concept
The philosophers of ancient Greece, who were among the first thinkers to inquire into the problem of the nature of the law, felt
a need for an unassailable starting point in the study of the nature of law. The Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle)
believed that the main condition of life in society is good faith. This means that human beings have a basic concept of justice enabling
them to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad.3
They found their unassailable starting point in the study of the nature of the law in the moral nature and good faith of human
beings. On this basis, human beings are able to live harmoniously with one another.4
A. Socrates' Absolute Justice
He has two considerations which he inculcated in the minds of his students. The first is no person is intentionally bad or evil
because of the knowledge of justice. The second consideration that he emphasized is that only the temperate person knows himself or
herself and, thus, able to bring his or her emotions under control.5
In the first consideration, Socrates drew a distinction between absolute knowledge of justice (episteme) and mere opinion of
justice ( doxa), prefering the former. In the second consideration he explained that for him a temperate individual is a good, happy and
sound person able to jude whether his or her acts and their consequences would be just (virtuous) or unjust (vicious).6
He emphasized this two considerations exhibit the moral nature and good faith of a person, guiding him or her even over the
written statutes of the state.
B. Plato's Rational Justice
Plato taught his students that there is a hierarchy of reality and drew a sharp line beween ideal reality and physical reality. He
explained that apart from objects and entities that are observable to the physical senses there exists another timeless dimension of
reality. He gave the name ideas to this other entities which have reality and distinctiveness in the mind or intellect. He assailed that the
physical reality is only a representation of the ideas by virtue of their relationship to them.7
In the same way, the idea of justice exists in the mind or intellect even though one does not see rectitude in fact done or
performed.. He posited the concept of justice yielding to the rational mind or intellect of a person even though it may be contrary to his
or her own judgement.
1

Article found at: http://www.kheper.net/topics/cosmology/teleology.html, December 7, 2008

Pascual, Carlito. Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1994

33

Pascual, Carlito. Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1994

44

Ibid.

55

Ibid.

66

Ibid.

77

Pascual, Carlito. Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1994

For Plato, human beings are capable of discerning justice from injustice. And, for him, rational justice is sufficient to enable a
person to attain his or her moral nature and good faith, and to keep his or her self-respect by doing good and shunning evil.
In his de Repulblica, he posited justice as the central theme of his concept of the law. Rational justice dictate that every
individual in the state should attend to his or her own business in a certain way. The individual has to keep his or her own role or
position in order to preserve social peace and harmony and prevent disturbance.
The virue of Plato's concept became its own defeat. It has been dicredited on the basis of the ethical principle of meliorism,
that is to say the inherent right of human beings to move on and better the quality of their lives.
Aristotle's Practical Justice
Aristotle being a warm humanist differs to Socrates and Plato in many ways one of which is in the concept of justice. He
denied Socrate's concept of absolute justice as too exacting for it demanded the kind of moral excellence which is the culmination of all
virtues. He also did not agree with Plato's concept of rational justice because it was still a subjective virue.8
For him, the concept of justice is nothing more that the virtue of epiekeia, justice which grows out of the sense of fair equality.
He said that justice is sound and sensible when, in light of events and cricumstances, it is fair and equal. That a person cannot be
unfairly or uneqqually treated even with his or her consent because consent cannot justify an unfair or unequal treatment. Thus, for
Aristotle, the hallmark of a person's moral nature and good faith is fair equality.
He said that a person, after all, is curious of himself or herself as a human being, not as an angel as Socrates and Plato had
made a human being look like. A person is social in desposition that he needs someone to do good as means of self expression and
self-realization.
The author conculded that justice is a particular virtue not a universal ingredient in the application of law in society.
D. Law as the Product of reason Related to Justice and Equity
To the greek philosophers, a thing is realized in its true nature when it is fully developed. In the case of human beings' true
nature , they do not only have nutritive soul( primitive state) but also a rational soul (fulfilled reality). Thus man is a rational and free
willing being. In the case of law, its fulfilled reality is found in the realization of the precepts of the natural law in the legal order.

The Roman Concept

The Roman jurisprudents subjected the nature of the law to technical annlysis and endorsed it with their practical genius for
colonization.
A. Cicero
Marius Tullius Cicero learned his law from Quintus Muscius Scaevola II who was a sincere adherent of the Stoic school of
philosophy. He brought the greek concept of the nature of the law into contact with the Roman legal system at a time when there was a
need for some means of controlling an empire already extending arond and beyond the Medeterranean Bassin. He said that the law
mus t be based on the priciple of utility or the internst of the ruler and not for the interest of the governed because humanking is
governed naturally by utility. He intoduced compulsion as an element of law. Thus law cannot be an effective means of control on the
basis of rationality alone but must also be able to compel obedience.9
B. Gaius
In his Institutes, Gaius advanced the view that the rules established by the citizens to govern themselves fall under the jus
civile, while the rules common to all other persons based on the natural law are classified under the jus naturale. This view is evident in
his work, the Institutes. For him, those that are in derogation of the precepts of the natural law are not laws at all. If such laws exist it is
because the sanctions attached to them, not because they are laws. They do not contribute to the maintenance and preservation of
lawness. On the contrary, they are conducive to lawlessness.

In identifying this aberration in the legal order, Gaius advocated for a continuing process of removing such unnatural laws. His
idea was that law must be reexamined by the lawmaking body every once in a while. This process would, then, provide the means for
legal cleansing whereby any abnormality or irregularity in the legal order could be adjusted to comply with the end and purpose of the
law.

88

Pascual, Carlito. Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1994

99

Pascual, Carlito. Introduction to Legal Philosophy. 1994