Nature's Law

 

Nature's Law

When Thomas Jefferson wrote:"Laws of Nature" into the Declaration of independence, he was referring to an Enlightenment concept deeply rooted in Western philosophy.

In later writings, Jefferson elaborated:

Nature has written her moral laws on the head and heart of every rational and honest man, where man may read them for himself. If ever you are about to say anything amiss, or to do anything wrong, consider beforehand you will feel something within you which will tell you it is wrong, and ought not to be said or done. This is your conscience, and be sure and obey it... Conscience is the only sure clue which will eternally guide a man clear of all his doubts and inconsistencies.

 

What is Nature's Law?
    The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, suggested that human virtue is not imposed from without, but blossoms from within.

People feel a natural inclination to ideas of fairness, human rights and equality. We know in our hearts what is right and wrong.

This struck a philosophical chord that has resonated ever since, and resulted in an awareness of what was later called natural laws, or Nature's Law.
    Know upfront that is not a compilation of rules or regulations, or commandments carved in stone. Nor does it refer to the general concept of scientific laws.
    What philosophy refers to as Nature's Law is the convergence and conclusions of human conscience and rationality, an inner reference that recognizes the intrinsic dignity of human rights and values that are then rationally perceived. It is not a single person's possession, but shared among us all at the deepest level. It is our sense of justice, fairness and compassion by which all subsequent laws should be judged. one can think of it as the intuitive precursor and stimulus for human law.
    John Locke, the philosopher who most influenced Jefferson, went to far as to believe that acting dishonorably meant acting against nature. The moral equality of human beings, he said, is based on their common nature (translated by Jefferson into "all men are created equal"). Natural law is what steers people toward the common good, rather than getting mired in self-interest. Personal ethics are recognized duties we have toward one another by virtue of our being human. We are social creatures, and that requires concern for others. The following quote by Locke illustrates how deeply he believed this:

To take away wrongful from another and for one man to advance his own interest by the disadvantage of another man is more contrary to nature than death, than poverty, than pain, than any other evil.

While the ancients saw natural law as obligation, Enlightenment thinkers saw it from the recipient's point-of-view by calling these obligations human rights. Instead of seeing right action as a magnanimous virtue on the way to self-perfection, they saw it as universal rights that people should not be treated poorly or with bias. These approaches, subtly different, lead to similar results. From our perspective, they are best embraced together. People have certain rights, and we have a duty to respect them.
    Is this just a quaint philosophical idea no longer relevant in our age of science? Or does Nature's Law point to something of intrinsic value for us now, when our understanding of the natural world far exceeds anything Enlightenment philosophers imagined?
    Unlike most of us today, who have so many resources available to us, earlier generations had to look for truth in themselves and the world around them, with the bold confidence that truth could be directly found and related to.
    Today, we have almost unlimited supplies of knowledge at our finger tips. But something is missing. With the availability of legions of experts on every subject, much of the personal urge to discover, which is part of our nature, has been left to stagnate. We expect answers to be ready-made and quickly available, so we can pick and choose what we want. This attitude denotes subtle changes to our encounter with the world. It makes us dependent more on others than on ourselves to an intellectual extreme. Our present dynamic for learning things is that of being perpetual students at the feet of supposed masters, who may or may not be correct. Our fundamental need for soul-searching discovery remains ignored.
    Jefferson and his peers saw the acquisition of knowledge as a perpetual quest filled with wonder and excitement that reflected human nobility.
    In contrast, we are the recipients of conclusions already formulated by others. Our challenge is reduced to choosing among prefabricated options, remembering what we are taught, and fitting in with a quiescent status quo. Pervasive social values, which have somewhat strayed from Nature's Law, encourage us to apply knowledge for personal pleasure or profit, and not as responsible citizens of the world. These are two very different versions of life's meaning. one is purposeful, exciting and progressive; the other dependent, unimaginative, and obsessed by self-interest. Unless we choose one over the other, we inherit what we will by chance.
    For today's skeptical minds, we need to know if Nature's Law is something real, something that even strict evolutionary science can validate. I think it is.
    Despite cultural differences, human morality and social law are, in various forms, found in all human societies. Logic suggests that such universality could only be explained by the common denominator of human beings themselves. When certain mammalian instincts and rational thought converge, values and meanings gradually develop over time. As rational thought continues to be applied, moral tendencies become clearer, and conscience earns its due. Written laws are, or should be, ｅxpressions of this process.
    While this is a universal human phenomenon, it can, and often is, interfered with. The entire process can be impeded if people are detoured at an early age, as we see today.
    The utility of Nature's Law is not given to us whole cloth at birth, but just as a potential that hopefully gains ascendency as we mature. It places us in relationship with the mystery of life and existence itself. It grows as we grow, and as our ability to reason becomes more refined. Properly encouraged, it flourishes. Neglected, it shrivels to suppressed feelings of discontent. Just as a seed needs water to produce a mature plant, so too the mind needs deep, independent inquiry and reflection for its full potential to bloom. The mind with undeveloped conscience has been diverted from its own natural growth. Too many ready-made answers, too much peer pressure or social expectation, too few personal expectations and inspirational opportunities, result in this loss—as does a lack of love.
    Which brings us to very real and important consequences. Our view of ethics depends on our view of human nature, and its subsequent view of reality. However we define our ethics, defines us as well. We cannot leave them to chance or expediency.
   

 What about religion?
    From what has been said so far, Nature's Law might be construed as purely a secular or philosophical idea, in that it fails to reference God.

Is it in any way compatible with Judeo-Christian theology?
    The answer is yes. Seven out of the Ten Commandments, those referring to social morality, reflect the essence of natural law, as does the Golden Rule of loving one's neighbor as oneself. Confirming this connection more specifically, St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans:

When Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…

Natural law provides an important concept to Chivalry-Now. It affirms a process through which we find and relate to virtue that starts within ourselves. This relationship is vital to who we are, leading to a fulfilling life. It encourages us to seek truth for ourselves, and tap into the dictates of conscience, even when society points in another direction. It also provides a certain level of autonomy conducive with the experience of freedom that we refer to as the quest.

 

 

------------

아리스토텔레스는 '자연의 정의'와 '법의 정의'가 언제나 일치하지는 않는다고 주장했다.
그의 주장에 따르면, 자연의 정의는 어느 곳에서나 똑같은 효력을 갖고서 존재하며, 사람들이 어떻게 생각하느냐에 따라 존재하는 것이 아니다. 따라서 실정법 pisitive law 에 불만이 있으면 자연법 natureal law 에 호소할 수 있다.
그러나 아리스토텔레스는 여성이 남성에게, 노예가 시민에게, 이방인이 그리스인에게 복종해야 하는 등 자연법의 실례를 주로 그리스 도시국가들에 대한 관찰에서 끌어냈다.
반면 스토아 학파가 생각한 자연법은 인간의 정신 속에 있는 '올바른 이성' 또는 로고스에 따르는 완전히 평등한 법이었다.

그래서 키케로도 '진정한 법은 모든 인간 안에 편재한 영원불멸의 올바른 이성'이라고 했다.

 

로마의 율법가들은 자연법 개념에 대해 입에 발린 말을 많이 했는데, 이 점은

사도 바울로가 그리스도교도의 '가슴에 씌어진 법'(로마 2：14~15)이라고 한 말에 잘 드러나 있다.

히포의 성 아우구스티누스는 사도 바울로의 말을 받아들여, 인간이 타락하여 죄와 실정법에 얽매이기 전까지는 자연법에 따라 자유롭게 살았다는 생각을 펼쳤다.

11세기에 그라티아누스는 단순히 자연법을 신법, 즉 〈신약성서〉·〈구약성서〉에서 계시된 법과 특히 황금률에 대한 그리스도교적 해석과 동일시했다.

성 토마스 아퀴나스는 자연법에 관해 체계적인 사상을 제시했다. 그의 주장에 따르면, 신적 이성의 영원한 법은 신의 마음 속에 있는 그대로가 아니더라도 이미 계시를 통해서나 우리의 이성작용을 통해서 부분적으로 알려져 있다. 자연법은 '영원한 법이 이성적인 피조물에 관여한 것'이므로, 자신의 선한 면을 보존하고 '자연이 모든 동물에게 가르쳐준 욕구'를 채우며 신에 관한 지식을 추구하는 등 인간이 분명하게 정립할 수 있는 교훈들로 이루어져 있다. 따라서 인간의 법은 자연법의 특수한 응용이어야 한다는 것이다.

존 던스 스코터스, 오컴의 윌리엄, 프란시스코 수아레스 등 다른 스콜라 철학자들은 법의 원천으로 신의 이성 대신 신의 의지를 강조했다. 이러한 '주의주의'(主意主義)는 종교개혁을 반대한 가톨릭 법리학에 영향을 끼쳤으나, 훗날 토마스주의가 다시 부활·강화되어 레오 13세 이후 교황청의 사회강론에서 자연권을 설명하는 중요한 철학적 근거가 되었다.

휘고 그로티우스가 자연법의 권위를 호소한 것은 법학사에서 획기적인 일이다. 동료인 칼뱅주의자 요하네스 알투시우스(1557~1638)가 예정설을 근거로 모든 인간을 구속하는 법이론을 정립하려 한 데 비해 그로티우스는 '신이 존재하지 않는다거나 신이 인간사에 관여하지 않는다고 가정하더라도' 자연법은 효력을 가진다고 주장했다.

몇 년 뒤 토머스 홉스는 성서의 에덴 동산에서 인간이 누리던 '순결한 상태'에서가 아니라 자유롭고 평등한 권리를 지닌 인간들 각자가 서로에 대해 외로운 전쟁을 벌이던 야만적 '자연상태'에서 인간사회가 시작되었다고 주장했다. 홉스는 자연권(jus naturale)을 '인간이 자기 본성을 지키기 위해, 다시 말하면 스스로의 생명을 지키기 위해 각자 자신의 힘을 사용할 수 있는 자유'라고 인식한 뒤, 자연법(lex naturalis)을 '인간이 자기 생명을 파괴하지 못하도록 이성을 통해 발견하는 일반규범의 가르침'이라고 정의했다. 그 다음에 홉스는 평화와 사회를 확립할 수 있는 기본 규범들을 열거했다. 그로티우스와 홉스 두 사람은 함께 '자연법학파'를 주도했다. 이들은 계몽주의 사조에 따라 사회계약 이전의 자연상태라는 가공상태로부터 합리적인 추론을 거쳐 완전한 법체계를 만들려고 시도했다.

영국의 존 로크는 홉스의 비관주의와는 달리 자연상태를 자유롭고 평등한 인간이 이미 자연법을 준수하고 있는 사회상태로 묘사했다.

프랑스에서는 몽테스키외가 자연법이 사회보다 앞서며 종교와 국가의 법보다 우월하다고 주장했고,

장 자크 루소는 홀로 덕을 지키면서 자기보존과 동정(타인을 해치는 데 본능적으로 거부감을 갖는 것)이라는 '이성에 앞선' 두 원리에 따라 행동하는 원시인을 가정했다.

미국의 '독립선언'은 평등권과 그밖의 '양도할 수 없는' 권리를 '자명한' 것으로 열거하기에 앞서 자연법에 대해 아주 간략히 말하고 있다.

프랑스의 '인간과 시민의 권리선언'은 자유권·소유권·생존권·저항권 등을 '절대적 자연권'으로 선언하고 있다.

이마누엘 칸트의 철학은 자연 그 자체를 인식하려는 시도는 포기했지만, 실천이성 또는 도덕이성이 순수형식적인 골격을 갖는 타당한 권리체계를 도출해낼 수 있다고 여겼다. 칸트의 이러한 형식주의는 20세기에 이르러, 자연주의적 법리학이 부활하는 데 영향을 끼쳤다. 20세기에 국제정치의 차원에서 이루어진 인권선언은 자연법에 관한 명쾌한 이론에서 나온 것이라기보다는, 일상적 가치를 확보하기 위해 경험적 차원에서 이루어진 노력의 산물이었다.