Natural Law

What is beyond?
Who is he?
Sapere Aude (Dare to be wise, dare to know)
Born in 1724 in Konigsberg, Prusia
(Kaliningrad)
German philosopher
It always remains a scandal of philosophy
and universal human reason that the
existence of things outside us ... should have
to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it
occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be
unable to answer him with a satisfactory
proof.
Then he Proposed:
Up to now it has been assumed that all our
cognition must conform to the objects; but ...
let us once try whether we do not get farther
with the problems of metaphysics by
assuming that the objects must conform to
our cognition.
Hans Kelsen is inspired by this Philosopher.
 The Three Postulates
FREEDOM GOD - IMMORTALITY
There are incorporated into coherent and
meaningful ethical structure.
A postulate is a theoretical propositions
which is not as such demonstrable but
which is an inseparable corollary of an
apriori unconditionally valid practical law.
The postulate becomes part of the Kants
ethical structure but he makes it clear that
the postulates play no theoretical or
explanatory role.
 Postulates
As we have no intuitions to apply the
concepts of freedom, God and
immortality; no theoretical
knowledge is possible.
Kant makes it clear, A postulate of
practical reason is an object of
rational belief, but the reasons for the
belief are practical and moral. Person
needs the belief as a condition for
obedience to the moral law.
 Explanation
Freedom, God and Immortality: are not theoretical
dogmas presuppositions: for practical
reference. The postulate can be considered as an
attempt to limit the theoretical and extend the
practical so as to make them stand together.
God as postulate by Kant is not the God of
religion. It has origin in ones own reason which
would necessarily mean that submitting to will of
God is submitting to ones own reason. The need
of God arises because the relationship between
moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this
world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus
necessitates the compatibility of virtue and
realization of highest good, according Kant.
 Explanation
Immortality is very much related with God. For
Kant it is very difficult for a man to be righteous
without hope. Immortality guarantees this hope
and ensures that there is a place sufficient for
the reckoning of happiness in proportion to
worthiness to be happy.
Freedom (Autonomy) is given a special position
among the other two postulates. It becomes
the condition of of the moral law which we do
know. It is because of freedom that God and
Immortality gain objective reality and
legitimacy and subjective necessity. Freedom
(Autonomy) then can be considered as the
keystone of the structure of pure reason.
 Its Relevance with Natural
Law
The assumption of natural law: Universality
and Eternality
System of thinking : transcendentalist
There is another world consists of absolute
entity that determines the world of everyday
life.
Secular approach (rationality) and theological
approach (God as supreme and almighty
entity).
Natural Laws perspective is transcendentalist
in nature because it believes the existence of
what is behind the appearance.
 Conversation between two old
friends
Do you believe that there is life after this life?
No, I do not believe it.
But for what reason you will do good in your life?
Dont you expect reward?
No.
So what makes you do good?
Happiness. I do good because I am happy to do that.
Isnt that (happiness) a reward?
No. That is a consequence of what Ive done. If you
speak about reward then there would be
something that gives me such reward and in
contrary a punishment if I do bad.
So it is meaningless if I will relate reward with the
life afterlife or heaven as reward of your good
behavior and attitude.
 Questions
Do people always need reward for doing good?
If we make further reflection on goodness, does
goodness always anchor its existence in the hope
for reward in the future, especially good reward in
the afterlife? Isnt that good is enough for good
itself?
If we take a look on law. Do you see that the logic
of law quite the same with such kind of logic?
reward and punishment logic. Is it really necessary
for applying such logic in law so people will obey
the law?
What about common good? Do we need such logic
for achieving common good?