The Ethics Of Liberty - Natural Law As "Science"

 

In chapter 2, Rothbard explains the basis of natural law and why it is important.  He also continues to address skeptics' objections.

Part of accepting the existence of natural law is accepting the fact that everything in existence has a nature.  That nature determines the attributes of the things and also how different things interact with one another.  Philosophically the nature of a thing can also be thought of as a Platonic form.  There is a form of a chair which is the ideal chair.  The form represents perfectly what a chair is supposed to be and what it is supposed to do.  All chairs in existence are linked to the form as imperfect examples of it.  So the form of chair specifies the attributes that all chairs share, including their proper use.  You could also call it the natural law of chairs .  Particular chairs are examples of the universal form.  No two chairs are exactly the same, but they are all chairs.

                "The world, in fact, consists of a myriad number of observable things, or entities.

                This is surely an observable fact.  Since the world does not consist of one

                homogenous thing or entity alone, it follows that each one of these different things

                possesses differing attributes, otherwise they would all be the same thing.  But if A,

                B, C, etc., have different attributes, it follows immediately that they have different

                natures."

I think this statement is both obvious and irrefutable.  The implication of this truth is that there is a specific human nature.  Following that, the purpose of human life springs from the existence of human nature. Just like the purpose of an apple is known by understanding the nature of apples.

                "is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one [a nature]?...

                If all things have natures, then surely man's nature is open to inspection;

                the current brusque rejection of the concept of the nature of man is therefore

                arbitrary and a priori"

It sounds like common sense, but the Western elite, intellectual class has not believed human nature exists for over a century.  Satisfied that he has defended his assertion sufficiently, Rothbard continues to whittle away the criticisms of natural law theory.  The first objection raised is the question, who gets to determine the precepts of natural law?  Having taken revelation out of the equation, Rothbard states that the search for natural law is the same as the search for scientific understanding.  People should apply observation and logic to human nature and let people decide for themselves.  It's the market place of ideas argument, that the best ones will win out in the end.

I agree that human nature can be understood through observation and logic, at least in an incomplete, fallible way.  My pushback is that natural law defines how people should live life today.  Real individuals can't wait around for research and debate to decide how to direct their lives.  Sociology in a sense is what Rothbard is talking about, but who is reading sociological articles on which to base their lives?  Countless lives would be wasted with this approach.  No.  People can't afford to wait around for political philosophers and social scientists to come up with answers.  Mankind has needed a complete and reliable standard of natural law handed to them since the beginning of time.  The Bible addresses that need.

                Romans 1

                "19 that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it

                evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes,

                His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood 

                through what has been made"

                

                Romans 2

                "14 when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law,

                these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work

                of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness"

The firs quote doesn't address natural law directly.  However, if we can understand things about God's nature by investigating creation, then we can also learn more about our own nature in the same way.  The problem with this approach is that if we rely on human reason alone, endless generations will never come to an adequate knowledge because of human error and our short lifespan.  The good news is the Bible gives us a short cut and a guide to discover natural law.  The even better news is that God created mankind with an innate understanding of right and wrong.  We know some things about natural law from the day we are born.

This is a fundamental issue for every human being.  Following natural law is the path to real happiness and fulfillment, in other words living your best life.

                "The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, 'goodness' is the fulfillment

                of what is best for that type of creature; 'goodness' is therefore relative to the 

                nature of the creature concerned."

                "In the case of man, the natural law ethic, states that goodness or badness can be

                determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature."

It is also objective.  The goals we pursue are either good or bad.  Natural law speaks to an "objective moral order", that should be followed by each person, family, or nation.  That is in contrast with economic value, which is subjective.  It is not a moral issue whether you buy this type of food over another, or even if you choose to buy a shirt instead.  Subjective economic value and objective moral, ethical value both exist.  The difficulty is recognizing which areas of human life involve which type of value.

The next objection is that natural law ethics confuses a fact with a value.  That is an important hurdle to cross as I said in the previous article.  You can't just look at what exists in the real world and declare that what you see is ethically correct or supports a human's best life.  20th century philosopher John Wild's offers an answer to the question.

                "their [natural law] view identifies value not with existence but rather with

                the fulfillment of tendencies determined by the structure of the existent entity."

He appeals back to the assertion that natural law can be understood through observing human nature.  But here he separates out nature from observed human activity, because many don't live ethical, moral, fulfilling, happy lives.  But his appeal is to define natural law both by what is observed about mankind and also not considering what is observed about mankind.  I understand his point to mean that unethical people today would say they are living their best life, but they are not to be trusted.  I agree with that point.  However, as logic would require, the objective standard can't be humans and not-humans at the same time.  Therefore I agree we shouldn't confuse fact with value.  Yet, he then tries to build value on an arbitrary set of facts which he has chosen to use.  It isn't logically consistent.  I propose another solution at the end.

David Hume (1711-1776) was a leading opponent of natural law ethics.  His critique included the fact-value problem already discussed.  To that he added his belief that "reason is and can only be a slave to the passions."  He places emotion, impulse, or irrationality in authority over logic and reason.  However, Hume's failure is that he is inconsistent, which I guess isn't all that surprising since he rejected reason in the first place.  In his philosophical system he rejects reason but then appeals to it by asserting the importance of social order and justice for people to live their best life.

 

                "in discussing justice and the importance of the rights of private property, Hume

                was compelled to write that reason can establish such a social ethic: 'nature provides

                a remedy in the judgment and understanding for what is irregular and uncommodius

                in the affections' - in short, reason can be superior to the passions."

 

I continue to be torn between two ideas revolving around natural law.  First, it makes sense that we can examine humans in fields like anatomy, anthropology, and sociology to better understand what makes a happy, fulfilling life.  We can also look at history, culture, legal systems, and religions to inform our understanding.  However, the second idea is that not even a group of very intelligent human beings will be able to sift through all the data to come up with something correct enough to be usable.  In every subject there will be disagreement between sources and a decision will have to be made.  Who is right?  Who is wrong?  To me the subject matter is too important to leave up to the market place of ideas, seeing how poor a track record it has had during the 21st century.

Instead, there must be an external standard to mankind by which to make those judgments.  Something or someone like an inventor who creates a thing.  He knows the purpose of the thing upfront, and designs the thing to carry it out appropriately.  If only there was such an inventor like that we could consult.