Natural Law and Life

Natural Law What is Law?
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question What is Truth? is to the logician.

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884).
Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law is a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on whats correct. Natural Law is discovered by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

Natural Law and Life. Randall Niles views the Moral Law applicable to all of us, including murder, theft, lying, and cheating. In the case of homicide (“the unjustified killing of another human being”), we all agree that it’s wrong, we just disagree on the definitions, such as “justification” and “human being.”

This video examines the different treatment of fetal homicide across Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, and Civil Law throughout the United States. Why the different definitions in Roe v Wade, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, and various Wrongful Death Acts in certain states?

Please visit http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htm for more information on Natural Law and Life issues. Also, please visit http://www.RandallNiles.com for more videos covering issues of Natural Law, Philosophy, Christianity, the Miracle of Life, and Abortion.

Duration : 0:8:16


Post Author: mark

10 thoughts on “Natural Law and Life

    NamelessCommenter

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    “All I can say is …
    “All I can say is that, for a slow learner like me, the question of gods and other metaphysical entities including ‘Natural Law’ remains still open at present even if some devoutly insist that it is closed; and that arguments like ‘Shut up’ and ‘I’ll prove it later’ only add to my doubts and suspicions.” –R.A. Wilson (“Natural Law”)

    NamelessCommenter

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    “Natural Law in the …
    “Natural Law in the sense of ideologists or idolators seems quite distinct from Natural Law in the sense of the physical sciences. Even when some Natural Law theorists, like George H. Smith, admit the vast gulf between scientific (instrumental) generalizations and their alleged Natural Laws or taboos, they still habitually use language and metaphor that blurs this distinction and creates a semantic atmosphere in which they seem to be discussing law in the scientific sense.” –R.A. Wilson

    iamundergrace

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    i use this argument …
    i use this argument all the time.

    pantstelly93

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    yeh but its still …
    yeh but its still redundant to say “unjustified murder” in the context of natural law because it can never be justified as it prevents the final cause of human life from ever occuring
    thats like natural law in its most basic form

    RighteousPaladin

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    Your rhetorical …
    Your rhetorical question and following comment essentially creates the false dilemma that natural law (including natural moral law) cannot be fulfilled in other ways; i.e., a human cannot fly without some kind of device as justification for gravity. Unjustified and unaided said human would fall from any height attained. Since natural law is currently immutable by humans, that which is unjustified must and will be rectified. All equations, whether physical or moral, will be balanced.

    pantstelly93

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    why are you even …
    why are you even using the word unjustified?
    natural law doesn’t allow it no matter what so it doesn’t need to be there

    havock89

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    I agree with you, …
    I agree with you, and would go futher. The term judge is more properly used for the process of determining degree of punishment, not determining the right or wrong of a given situation. In the legal system (which is based on the judeo-christian concept of justice and morality) the everyman (jury of peers) has the capacity and the duty to determine guilt or innocence.

    iToyRobot

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    just shows how …
    just shows how screwed up the law is.. God Help Us..

    RighteousPaladin

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    unjustified raping …
    unjustified raping is wrong
    unjustified is wrong

    The English language oversimplifies certain things. We use the same word “kill” for what we do to a pesky insect or a weed as we do for a fellow human being; thus it is occasionally a necessity to differentiate between whether something is justified or not.

    Consider the word “judge.” If someone says not to judge, does that mean that you become completely insensible in judging the distance from your couch to your toilet?

    velocityeleven

    (October 15, 2010 - 1:05 pm)

    but anything that’s …
    but anything that’s “unjustified” is wrong purely definition

    unjustified killing is wrong
    unjustified eating is wrong
    unjustified driving is wrong
    and so on

Leave a Reply