— by Odysseus
In the Republican Convention and, generally, in the remarks now being made by GOP candidates or commentators, there is a welcome increase in the mention of the term “natural law” or, even more frequently, a reference to “natural rights” endowed or given to us by a “creator”. This is a sign of a fundamental shift in the Republican Party towards an ideology that is far more liberty-oriented and more individualistic than we have seen in quite some time. This shift makes the GOP much more closely in accord with the principles and ideology that is America.
It appears to be a conscious shift, and it is refreshingly welcome to finally hear the Republican leadership acknowledge openly that America is not a geographic place or a “people” or an ethnicity, but, rather, an idea. The Republican leadership is acknowledging that America has become great because it is founded on an idea that succeeds better than any other ideology that has yet been either implemented or even imagined by humans. Unfortunately, we suspect that too many Americans are unaware of the significance of this shift and merely hear the language and the words without understanding the meaning or significance behind them.
Too many American hear the word “God” and simply think that the language about “rights endowed to us by our Creator” is merely “preachy”, causing some to even intellectually recoil. The speakers, like Paul Ryan, well-read as they are on political philosophy, may not even realize that their audience does not fully understand the depth of meaning behind the words they choose. They are speaking in intellectual shorthand for those who understand that long lineage of philosophy.
The purpose of this article is threefold. First, it is to explain the concepts of “natural rights law”. Second, it is to “modernize” natural law theory so that its value and validity are proven to continue their relevance even to those who are agnostic or atheist in their religious persuasion. Finally, it is to emphasize how important it is to the survival of America that one of the two major United States political parties has chosen to return to this philosophy at long last.
I. “Natural Law” is the concept that there exists an objective “right” and “wrong”. It is the belief that the source of morality is an independent ideal, and that laws written, created, and enforced by governments should be merely attempted codification of a preexisting order to things. “Natural Law” theory goes on to note that, when governments create laws or ruling structures that are in concurrence with the preexisting order of things, that are congruent with what all men know to be “right” and “wrong”, then those laws or ruling structures remain strong. The laws enjoy broad acceptance and support from a population whose members, even when they are personally being punished by those structures and laws, internally realize those punishments are deserved because of the infractions they committed. They, their relatives, friends, and neighbors all accept the sanction because they know it to be just.
The shorthand way that political scientists and historians refer to this state of affairs is to say that the system enjoys “legitimacy”. Examples that “Natural Law” thinkers would point to of this universally understood and accepted concepts of “right”, “wrong”, “moral”, “immoral”, which are understood by all sane humans, would be our most basic concepts of criminal activity.
Humans seem to know that it is wrong to murder (wantonly kill) another human. Deep inside, all humans are not only hesitant to kill another human, but also understand that there are some circumstances where that killing is acceptable and necessary. Most of these exceptions are some variation of “defensiveness”. To take another life and still remain moral, most humans understand that it must be in defense of themselves, loved ones, their society (war) or to protect another’s life.
Likewise, most sane humans understand that it is not acceptable to steal another person’s things or belongings. “Stealing” is also a complex moral concept, which seems to be innately understood by most humans and also seems to have its own set of exceptions to the general rule. Most people would understand that there are “levels” of theft and commonly-held “acceptable excuses” for theft, such as the starving man who steals a loaf of bread or the “Robin Hood” who steals from those whose gains were themselves stolen from others. (The misappropriation of “Robin Hood” by various political causes is subject for another essay, noting that Robin Hood’s “victims” were actually agents of an unjust government, not “the rich”).
II. What is arguably the most fascinating thing about “Natural Law” theory is how well humans seem to be able to navigate these ambiguous, murky waters of “right” and “wrong” behavior, carving out exceptions or exemptions with remarkable unanimity. The fact that “justifiable” and “unjustifiable” behavior are so commonly understood, by different peoples around the globe, has been the historical basis for “Natural Law” theorists to point out that these universal concepts must have been implanted in our consciences by our deity. They have even been pointed to as evidence for the existence of the “soul”.
While post-modern professors, ethicists, sociologists, anthropologists, and other nabobs have desperately cast about the globe to find microscopic, statistically insignificant examples of societies that run contrary to normal human standards of behavior, such exceptions in no way obviate the rule. Humans, who are not grossly psychologically defective, due to biological or personal damage, have a common understanding of the basic concepts of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Even in prisons, there is still an understanding of “right” and “wrong” behavior that most of us would understand and agree with, even though the vast majority of the inmates, while still subscribing to these commonly-held moral beliefs, periodically voluntarily choose to violate some of those conventions. Interestingly, they even define amongst themselves who they consider to be “beyond the pale” for having committed unacceptable acts with no mitigating reasons.
Even many animals seem to possess concepts of “personal property”, “fairness”, and warranted/unwarranted injury. Any pet owner has personal knowledge of this undeniable fact. Recent studies have shown that chimps exhibit behaviors that clearly show an understanding of fairness, personal property, and even “making fair deal trades”. Chimps will share food and other goods in exchange for personal favors, alliances, and grooming.
Herein lies what could be the answer for the validity of basing “natural law” on a concept other than the action of a benevolent deity. Humans are social animals, who live, hunt, gather, and fight in groups. Like a pack of dogs or a school of dolphins, we have evolved to perform better together than as individuals. For any group of organisms to work together, some broadly accepted rules must exist that ensure that members of the group will be better served by remaining a member of the group than by striking out on their own. These rules must serve each and every member, must be predictable, and must be enduring. If the rule is that no food from the hunt goes to the smallest member, why would that member continue being a part? If the rule is that personal property can be taken at any time by another member for his own use regardless of the loss to the property owner, why be a member of the group? If one’s safety and the safety of one’s mate and offspring are constantly in danger from the group, why stay with the group? If these rules cannot be depended upon to remain constant, but, rather, change at the whim or convenience of the enforcer, why expect to rely on them, and stay with the group?
It is possible that humans who were inclined to certain types of behavior and were respectful of the others in the group were more successful in the evolutionary process. They lived longer, had more offspring, who, in turn, had more surviving offspring than did humans who did not have that innate sense of acceptable behavior. As these humans with a “conscience” bred together more and more, weeding out the bad actors with every successive generation, they developed an organic sense of “right and wrong”, which they then reinforced with social norms, taught behavior, and, eventually, religion, culture, and laws. Consequently, humans across the planet have a common understanding of what could be termed “morality” at a most basic level, as modified by culture and local expectations.
The concept of a “natural law”, which serves as root for any society’s legitimacy is, therefore, not dependent on accepting the concept that this “natural law” comes from a deity. The “natural law” may be an artifact of the biological construction of our brains. It could be as much a part of our DNA as our commonly shared cardiovascular system and nearly as critical to our survival.
III. When humans have a shared common sense of “right” and “wrong” behaviors, they also have a shared sense of what is the role of society. Regardless of the existence or non-existence of a deity, the end product is the same. When the Republican Party philosophers talk about our natural rights, endowed to us by our creator, that preexist government, the home listener need not obsess over the word “God” or “creator”. The word is interchangeable with word “nature”.
The critical concept is that “government” is not supreme. It is not the arbiter of “right” and “wrong”. It is not the final definer of “justice”, “compassion”, “goodness”, “fairness” or “morality”. These exist independent of government, and the government is something we created in service to these ends. When the government does not respect these ends, it loses legitimacy. When the government crafts laws that deviate too far from our common biological understanding that law is a mere reinforcement of acceptable behavior, that government loses legitimacy. This is why speeding on the freeway is against the law, but does not receive the same social condemnation as “stealing”.
When the GOP politicians are talking about “natural rights” and “natural law”, they are finally truly defending the concept of limited government. It draws a bright line distinction between the Republican Party and the Democrat party because it casts the Republicans as the party that stands up for the individual. It shows that this generation of the GOP understands that liberty, freedom, and respect can only be about respecting the commonly understood rights of each individual citizen alone. They include individuals expecting to have their private property rights respected. They include the right of individuals to keep what they build. It is not the property of the “government, to dispose of as the “ruler” sees fit. Individuals have a right to speak their mind, at any time and at any place, even if some other individuals may find what they have to say insulting or demeaning. No individual or group can demand that any individual “shut up” or forbid them from saying what they want. No one forces them to agree or listen.
So long as “natural law” is the basis for a political philosophy, the individual, the bearer of those rights is protected. Collective rights, where an individual’s property, freedom, and life can be commandeered so long as his or her “group” is looked after are no rights at all.
Philosophy matters, and, as the Republicans embrace “natural law”, it is a direct challenge to the purveyors of absolutist government. A political party that wishes to reject the idea of “natural law” and would rather embrace the post-modern purveyors of moral relativism is really arguing against any limitations to be placed on their own power. Unlike the current Republican leaders, the politicians and philosophers who decry “natural law” theory as outdated because the classical “natural law “theorists based it on the presumed existence of divine intention, are slovenly attempting to sidestep the intellectual roadblock to their own desire to be the absolutist, final arbiter of every issue, including morality. Their overwhelming, narcissistic belief that they can improve everything about humanity, through their divinely-perfect edicts, drives them to seek intellectual refuge in rejecting something that is obviously innate to human nature. A party that argues against “natural law” is a party of sociopaths that argues that no morality constrains its desired objectives, except that morality it defines and creates for itself.
