Natural Law 1

Natural Law
Joshua Landon
POL 120, IN1
December 9, 2009

Natural Law 2

Abstract
After examining the evidence, it becomes clear that there is an objective moral law or natural
law. This natural law is the same for all people in all places, throughout all of time. When
considering the proposed answers to the question of legislating this moral law, it seems as though
legislation of morality is not only right, but it is necessary. A firm founding in natural law is
necessary for the success and stability of a Republic. This is the view that the key founders of
our country held and defended, and is the only view that perfectly fits the evidence given to us
by history, logic, science, and our own observations.


Natural Law 3

Natural Law
The existence of Natural Law
There seem to be these rules or laws that we are all compelled, although not forced, to
live by. They arent the kind of laws that the government makes, for these rules seem to be
beyond or greater than the government. Nor are they the same thing as the laws of physical
nature (science), for the laws of science are simply descriptions of the material world, and are not
really rules that must be enforced or that nature must choose to live by. What then, are these
rules that we so often speak of and constantly imply in our behavior and thought? They are
ethical laws that we cannot change or modify and that oftentimes make us feel bad for
contradicting, and good for obeying. They constitute a moral law that is natural in the sense that
it is over or greater than us. In this paper we will call this the natural law. It is important not to
confuse this with laws of nature or scientific laws (Natural Law, 2009).
One of the most obvious indications that natural law exists is the fact that we constantly
refer to it in our speech and usually imply it in our mentality and attitude. For example, a parent
will often scold its child for an unacceptable action, explaining that the child ought not to have
done the thing, not because the child will get in trouble if it continues in that behavior, but
because it is wrong to do it. Consider, as an example, this situation: Two children are fighting
over a toy, when one of them says that he had the toy first, and that he should have it back. The
other child, then answers that the toy was left alone for a considerable amount of time, and that
he did nothing wrong by taking a toy that was not in someone elses use at the time.
Both of the children are referring to something greater than themselves. They arent
saying that they ought to have the toy simply because they want it. They are saying that they
ought to have the toy, because it is morally right for them to have the toy. If natural law didnt
Natural Law 4

exist, there would be no point in bringing up who had the toy first or how long it had been left
alone because it wouldnt change anything. All that would matter would be the reality of who
had the toy right then. There would be no reason to give it back. If, however, one of the
children could show that it is right for him to have the toy, the other child feels as though he
must allow him to have it. The child would know that he ought to obey the moral law. This is
the same for people of all ages. Although we dont always do what we ought to do, we still
recognize that we ought to do some things and not others.
If a child consistently defies the moral law, he is considered naughty, selfish, or mean.
Of course, there could be no naughty, selfish, or mean if there were no moral law. It
would be impossible to do anything wrong, if there werent a law suggesting that you do right.
You cant break a law, unless theres a law to break. To say that something is evil or wrong
implies that there is a moral law.
Adults and children alike, seem to have some kind of recognition and respect for natural
law, even if it is informal and inconsistent. We often times judge and even punish people for
things like rape, murder, and child abuse, as if these things are shameful and ought not be
done. We respond strongly when we feel that an innocent person has been wronged and even
stronger when we think that we have been wronged. Therefore, we all try to employ and
sometimes actually believe in a natural law. Although these beliefs and mentalities are often in
conflict with other attitudes and core beliefs, we hold them none the less.
Although almost all of us act as if there is a natural law most of the time, there have been
many objections raised against it from an intellectual standpoint. The most common reason for
rejecting the idea of objective morality is because it conflicts with relativism. Relativism, in this
Natural Law 5

context, refers to the belief that there are no real absolutes. The theory suggests that everything
is relative, even morals (Natural Law, 2009).
There are several key problems with relativism. The first and most obvious problem is
the fact that relativism is self-defeating. It claims that it is absolutely true that there are no
absolutes. So, if there are no absolutes, relativism cant be true. If there are absolutes then
relativism must be false. Since, according to the law of excluded middle, there either are or
arent absolutes, it follows that relativism is false. This alone is strong evidence for the falsity of
relativism. Even so, there are other reasons for rejecting relativism.
Relativism proposes that our morals are only created by society and thus have no real
weight or authority over us. There is a problem with this idea, though. If we create our own
morality, as relativism supposes, we would be greater than the moral laws. Obviously, a person
cannot create something that is greater than himself. That would be like a pot making a potter or
a shoe making a shoe smith. This sort of procedure has no resemblance to reality. A creature
never creates the Creator. A slave never makes the master. A being is always greater than the
thing that it creates. If a person made a rule, that person would be greater than the rule. The rule
would necessarily be subject to the rule-maker. The rule, as related to the rule-maker, would be
subjective, not objective.
The problem for the relativist is that the moral law is not subjective, but is instead,
objective. The fact of the matter is that we are subject to these laws. We do feel a need to obey
them. We act as if we cant change them. We try to excuse ourselves when we have been
disobedient. In essence, we act as though we are subject to them. It seems unlikely that all of
humanity would collectively act as if it were subject to a law that it wasnt really subject to at all.
The fact that every single person, even the strongest relativist, acts as if he or she is subject to a
Natural Law 6

moral law seems to suggest that we really are subject to a moral law. Relativism fails to offer an
acceptable explanation for the apparent subjection of humanity and, therefore, is false (Natural
Law, 2009).
While there are objections to the existence of natural law, they can all be shown to have
fallacies or false preconditions. There is strong evidence for this natural law and a firm belief in
it would seem to be justifiable.

The Legislation of Natural Law
While it can be shown that natural law does exist, the issue of how natural law relates to
political law may seem, at first, to be a little harder to tell. While almost everyone agrees that
certain things should be illegal, such as murder or child abuse, others are unsure about the
supposed rightness or wrongness of legislating laws against things like abortion and homosexual
marriage.
A careful observation reveals that the legislation of natural law is right and necessary. It
is necessary not in the sense that it ought to be done, but in the sense that it must be done. It will
be done, period. This is because all laws imply certain things to be right and others to be wrong.
This is extremely obvious in some laws, such as laws against rape, murder, and child abuse.
What is sometimes forgotten, though, is that even the more complex laws like, traffic laws,
imply morality. For example, the implementation of a speed limit implies that the government
has a right to protect the motorist on public roads. That is legislation of morality. When
carefully examined, it becomes evident that all political laws legislate morality. It is, therefore,
clear that the legislation of morality is possible, necessary, and, at least sometimes, right
(Geisler, 1998, 27-40).
Natural Law 7

There are, however, many objections to the legislation of moral law. One of the most
widely held arguments against the legislation of morality is the idea that it is wrong to force
others to do whats right. Dont cram your morality down my throat! is a common response.
The belief is that it is inconsiderate and immoral to force everyone to live in accordance with a
moral code. This is an interesting objection because it does the very thing that it seeks to
abolish. It is a self-defeating argument. Proponents are trying to impose the moral belief that
morals shouldnt be imposed. They are saying that it is morally wrong to make people live
morally, and thus that it shouldnt be done. The argument cannot be true, because if it is true,
then it would be false. So, it cannot be argued that it is wrong to cram morality down
someones throat (Geisler, 1998, 41-45).
Another common objection to the legislation of natural law is that it has been tried before
with prohibition and it didnt work. Therefore, it is argued, it would be better not to waist the
taxpayers money on trying to enforce a law that no one will obey anyway. Supposedly, because
prohibition was a failure, we should not try to legislate morality.
This argument has some major problems. The first is that it assumes that if a law is not
properly enforced then we should not have it. This is a ridicules notion. Just because a law has
enforcement problems or because theyre going to do it anyway it does not mean that it is
wrong to have the law. The question is if it is right to have the law, not whether it is easy to
enforce. Certainly no one would suggest that we should not have laws against murder because
the laws are not perfectly enforced. Its obviously right to have laws against murder because
murder is wrong, not because its easy or hard to enforce these laws. Therefore, the idea that
theyre going to do it anyway is not a reasonable argument against the legislation of morality.
Natural Law 8

It is also worth noting that prohibition was not a total failure. It is estimated that alcohol
consumption dropped 50% during prohibition. It would literally take decades for America to
reach the same per-capita consumption that it had before prohibition went into effect. Some
researchers also found that there were a smaller percentage of women and children reporting
abuse during prohibition (Geisler, 1998, 27-40). While it cannot be said that prohibition
worked to perfection, it should not be assumed that the laws were completely ineffective.
Many people object to the legislation of morality because laws cant change hearts.
Many of them, especially religious individuals, reason that the main problem is the heart and that
if the heart is changed, the actions will follow. It is, therefore, suggested that moral laws are not
necessary and indeed not even right, because they dont solve the real problem, namely, hearts.
Proponents of this view overlook an important fact, though. They fail to realize that the point of
laws is not to change hearts, but rather to change actions. Laws exist to restrain evil actions, not
to convert people to a certain religion or state of heart. It is true that, in that sense, laws dont
change hearts. However that does not mean that we shouldnt have the laws.
It should also be pointed out that, in another sense, laws do change hearts in the long run,
in that peoples attitudes and mentalities are often effected by the law. Many people assume that
if its legal its right and if its illegal its wrong. Whether or not they should, laws do change
hearts and attitudes over time.
Morality should be legislated and, upon careful observation, one might realize that the
legislation of someones view of morality is unavoidable in a democratic republic. While there
are many objections to the legislation of morality, they all either miss the point or are founded on
false premises. It is right, possible, and legal to legislate natural law.

Natural Law 9

The Founders on Natural Law
As has been shown, natural law does exist and should be legislated. This is what the
Founding Fathers of the United States believed. While many of the Founders were religious, and
especially Christian, many of them, particularly Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were
not. Both men were dedicated Deist, who believed that there was some king of God-like being
in existence, but that He never interacted with the universe or even cared about it. Neither of the
men cared much for practicing any religion, yet each had a firm belief in natural law (Inalienable
Rights, December 2, 2009).
Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, was an outspoken advocate
of the belief that a grounding in natural law is necessary in a republic, saying that a free people
[claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief
magistrate." (Inalienable Rights, December 2, 2009). There is much more to this statement than
a confirmation of objective morality. Jefferson is actually saying that a country may either have
tyranny or it may accept the reality of natural law.
Benjamin Franklin also acknowledged the necessity of natural law to a free people when
he famously said that man will ultimately be governed by God or by tyrants (Quotes by
Benjamin Franklin, December 2, 2009). Since Franklin was a Deist, he was obviously referring
to a moral law established by God. He was saying that if a nation rejects natural law, then it will
end up suffering under tyrannical rule. Both Franklin and Jefferson realized an important fact; if
a country is not restricted by natural law, it will be governed by the will of those who can attain
power. In other words, without some kind of absolute morality to lead a country, totalitarianism
will necessarily follow. It would, therefore, seem as though a firm grounding in natural law is
important to the success of a nation.
Natural Law 10


Conclusion
Natural law undoubtedly exists. We can observe from the actions and feelings of
obligation, which all people display, that we are all under the same kind of moral law and that
this law is absolute. Natural law can and should be legislated. While there are many objections,
it can be shown that legislation of morality is not only right, but it is unavoidable. The Founding
Fathers held a firm belief in natural law and its necessity to a successful nation. While many of
the founders drew their beliefs from their religions, others, such as Jefferson and Franklin, were
confident that a country has only two choices; acceptance of natural law or tyranny. It may
therefore be concluded that natural law exists, should be legislated, and is necessary for the
success of a nation, as believed by the Founding Fathers.

Natural Law 11

References

Alcohol Prohibition was a Failure, CATO Institute, July 17, 1991. December 9, 2009.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
Geisler, Norman, Frank Turek (1998). Legislating Morality. 27-40, 41-45
Inalienable Rights, Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government, October 4, 2001.
December 2, 2009. http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff0100.htm
Natural Law, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009. December 2, 2009.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm
Our Founding Fathers were not Christians, freethought.mbdojo.com, July 4, 2000. December
9, 2009. http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html
Quotes by Benjamin Franklin, Liberty Tree.ca, 2005. December 2, 2009. http://quotes.liberty-
tree.ca/quote/benjamin_franklin_quote_613d
The Religious Beliefs of the Founding Fathers, Thinkers on Religion.org. 2002. December 9,
2009. http://www.skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html
The Volstead Act and Related Prohibition Documents, Archieves.gov, June 7.2007. December
9, 2009. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/volstead-act/