RED – JASTIA-LIM

BLUE- ABIERA
VIOLET - RAMOS
1. Title

2. Human beings are considered both as part and apart by nature. We are
uniquely capable of reflecting our experience and formulating laws of
our own governance. As human beings, we are subject to nature’s laws.
Our experiences are of causal order – something that works tour own
purposes at the same time something that entangles us in the weave of
life. Philosophers and humanists are considering take pride in knowing
that their perspectives are superior, just the same way as Scientists
believe that it is also their beliefs that should matter. Yet in our daily
lives, perspectives are enmeshed; we shift our beliefs based on what is
asked in circumstance as well as in some regards, we don’t choose but
we look for ways and means to which both principles would have its
own place in our world.

3. In its earliest conception, the philosophy of Natural Law was an effort

to mediate these dual aspects of human existence. Natural Law emerges
distinctly in the first century B.C., in Cicero’s Latin renderings of
Greek Stoic Philosophy. Its sources extend back to the earliest stages of
Greek speculation about the human condition. At these known beliefs
are not separate doctrine, but fundamental attitudes and beliefs
recorded generally as fundamental attitudes and beliefs recorded
extensively in Science, Literature, and Philosophy . In the Greek
solution to humankind’s place in the universe has always been in the
 cosmos even when human beings tendencies may be considered as free
and self-determining. Even when there are instances when the subject
is on the causal laws of nature, whatever takes place is still attributed to
the order written in our stars.

4. After Cicero, these cosmic interpretation has been continuous, although

not consistently followed. It was only until the 13th Century when
Thomas Aquinas made the doctrine of natural law as a corner stone of
Philosophy. Aquinas believed that it is not Nature, but the Christian
God that is the foundation of all order. Natural Law was considered as
the Eternal Law that is ingrained in the creation that serves as the
doctrine and bind to all human beings. It is believed that humankind
may have the capacity to self-determination, but in its fullest essence it
is believed that we are adhering to the Eternal Law – that is, when we
subject ourselves to the law of nature, we put ourselves in the grace of
God’s providence and the fulfillment of Eternal Law.

5. The history of Natural Law continued after the 13th Century. Outside
the order of the Catholic Doctrine, the idea of Natural law declined and
it was then only considered as a theological principle and natural law
became an isolated abstraction. It turned into what individuals begin to
understand as a standard in human conduct, not because it has widely
been indoctrinated since, but because it has been persisting without
being explained and no one knows its limit because it has become
unfathomably vague.
6. Thinkers and Philosophers deemed Natural Law to be fundamental.
The likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke established an
understanding f the system as dictated by nature, whereas other equally
prominent Philosophers like Jean Jacque Rousseau and Immanuel Kant
dare say that natural law should not implicate nature at all.

7. As time passed, numerous explanation and interpretation about Natural

law has been made – what was evident in the coming of the 20th century
is that Natural Law became a purveyor of natural rights, which means
that the rights in question are self-evident ( or at least were treated as
though they were). Natural Law then survived the 20th century largely
because it has been passed down through generations trope or as parts
of a rhetorical figure of speech use to accredit intellectual or even
political assertions.

8. In the present world, The term “natural law” continuous to be

ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of
legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically
independent. It does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science
aims to describe. According to natural law moral theory, the moral
standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively
derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world.
While being logically independent of natural law legal theory, the two
theories intersect. However, the majority of the article will focus on
natural law legal theory.
9. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of legal standards
necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do
with the moral merits. There are a number of different kinds of natural
law legal theories, differing from each other with respect to the role that
morality plays in determining the authority of legal norms.

10.Thomas Aquinas’ view of foundational theory of natural law is guided

heavily by moral philosophy. His belief follows that thinking about
what to do is conveniently labeled “practical”, and is concerned with
what and how to choose and do what one intelligently and reasonably
can (1) to achieve intelligible goods in one’s own life and the lives of
other human beings and their environment, and (2) to be of good
character and live a life that as a whole will have been a reasonable
response to such opportunities. Aquinas distinguishes four kinds of
law: (1) eternal law; (2) natural law; (3) human law; and (4) divine law.
Eternal law is comprised of those laws that govern the nature of an
eternal universe; as Susan Dimock (1999, 22) puts it, one can “think of
eternal law as comprising all those scientific (physical, chemical,
biological, psychological, etc.) ‘laws’ by which the universe is ordered.”
Divine law is concerned with those standards that must be satisfied by a
human being to achieve eternal salvation. One cannot discover divine
law by natural reason alone; the precepts of divine law are disclosed
only through divine revelation.

11.William Blackstone on the other hand, articulates the two claims that
constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be
no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all
 valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural
law.yet there is the other aspect of natural law that came in as a form of
conceptual naturalism. This postulates that if you would relate Natural
Law into jurisprudence. Most famous will be John Austin’s work on
Legal Positivism and conceptual jurisprudence.

12.Most of the important theoretical work on law prior to Austin had

treated jurisprudence as though it were merely a branch of moral
theory or political theory: asking how should the state govern? (and
when were governments legitimate?), and under what circumstances did
citizens have an obligation to obey the law? Austin specifically, and legal
positivism generally, offered a quite different approach to law: as an
object of “scientific” study ,dominated neither by prescription nor by
moral evaluation. Austin’s efforts to treat law systematically gained
popularity in the late 19th century among English lawyers who wanted
to approach their profession, and their professional training, in a more
serious and rigorous manner.

13.Legal positivism asserts (or assumes) that it is both possible and

valuable to have a morally neutral descriptive (or “conceptual”—
though this is not a term Austin used) theory of law. (The main
competitor to legal positivism, in Austin’s day as in our own, has been
natural law theory.) Legal positivism does not deny that moral and
political criticism of legal systems is important, but insists that a
descriptive or conceptual approach to law is valuable, both on its own
terms and as a necessary prelude to criticism.
 (The term “legal positivism” is sometimes used more broadly to include
the position that we should construct or modify our concept of law to
remove moral criteria of legal validity; or to include a prescription that
moral values should not be used in judicial decision-making.

14.Natural law theory of law thus finds itself, in this respect, approximated
to by Ronald Dworkin’s account of law and adjudication, not only in
frontier situations like Nuremberg but also in the day-to-day working of a
sophisticated legal system. Normal adjudication and judicial reasoning has
two dimensions or criteria for distinguishing correctness from
incorrectness in judgments. One dimension comprises social-fact sources
(statutes, precedents, practice, etc.), called by Dworkin “legal materials.”
The other dimension comprises moral standards, presumptively those
prevalent in the judge’s community but in the last analysis just those
standards that the judge can accept as in truth morally sound. An
interpretation of our law which is morally sounder will be legally correct
even if it fits the legal materials less closely than alternative
interpretations, provided that it fits those social-fact sources “enough.”
The moral standards thus applied, which Dworkin (in line with natural law
theory) treats as capable of being morally objective and true, thus
function as a direct source of law (or justification for judicial decision)
and, in a certain sense, as already law, except when their fit with the
whole set of social-fact sources in the relevant community is so weak that
it would be more accurate (according to Dworkin) to say that judges who
 apply them are applying morality not law (and thus, if they said they were
applying law, would be mistaken or lying—a lie which Dworkin considers
sometimes commendable).

15.An example of natural law includes the idea that it is universally accepted
and understood that killing a human being is wrong.
However, it is also universally accepted that punishing someone for killing
that person is right.
16.The second example includes the idea that two people create a child, and
they then become the parents and natural caregivers for that child. It is
something that natural law theory would explain as natural law because it
is inherent within human beings, and any human-made law would not be
required for humans to feel as though they need to act as the caregiver of
their child.

17.Takeaway on Natural Law

18.Natural law is a philosophy based on the idea that everyone in a given

society shares the same idea of what constitutes “right” and
“wrong.”Further, natural law assumes that all people want to live “good
and innocent” lives. Thus, natural law can also be thought of as the basis
of “morality.”
19.Natural law may not be considered as “man-made” or “positive” law.
While positive law may be inspired by natural law, natural law may not be
 inspired by positive law. For example, laws against impaired driving are
positive laws inspired by natural laws.
20.Unlike laws enacted by governments to address specific needs or
behaviors, natural law is universal, applying to everyone, everywhere, in
the same way. For example, natural law assumes that everyone believes
killing another person is wrong and that punishment for killing another
person is right.

21.Governments do not grant natural rights. Instead, through covenants like

the American Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution,
governments create a legal framework under which the people are
permitted to exercise their natural rights. In return, people are expected
to live according to that framework. In his 1991 Senate confirmation
hearing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed the
widely shared belief that the Supreme Court should refer to natural law in
interpreting the Constitution. “We look at natural law beliefs of the
Founders as a background to our Constitution,” he stated.
22.Among the Founders who inspired Justice Thomas in considering natural
law to be an integral part of the American justice system, Thomas
Jefferson referred to it when he wrote in the first paragraph of the
Declaration of Independence:
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle
 them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

23.Jefferson then reinforced the concept that governments cannot

deny rights granted by Natural Law in the famous phrase: 
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” 
24.Our constitutional system clearly recognizes the natural law foundation of
our rights. Thus, according “to the Committee Reports, the Philippine
Constitution makes reference to the American Constitution xxx [T]he
Philippine bill of rights and the preamble makes reference to natural law
as an objective basis of rights.”It must be emphasized that when the
Supreme Court invokes natural law, it isn’t referring to any theological or
religious concept but rather recognition of objective standards as a
consequence of human nature.