INTRODUCTION

The fulcrum and central question of natural law theories of law is: How and why
can law and its positing in legislation, judicial decisions, and customs, give its
subjects sound reason for acting in accordance with it? How can a rule’s, a
judgment’s, or an institution’s legal (“formal,” “systemic”) validity, or its facticity
or efficacy as a social phenomenon (e.g., of official practice), make it authoritative
in its subject’s deliberations?
The sense and force of these questions, and the main features of the kind of answer
given by natural law theories, can be given a preliminary indication. On the one
hand, natural law theory holds that law’s “source-based character”—its
dependence upon social facts such as legislation, custom or judicially established
precedents—is a fundamental and primary element in “law’s capacity to advance
the common good, to secure human rights, or to govern with integrity” (cf. Green
and Adams 2019).
Classic and leading contemporary texts of natural law theory treat law as morally
problematic, understanding it as a normally indispensable instrument of great good
but one that readily becomes an instrument of great evil unless its authors steadily
and vigilantly make it good by recognizing and fulfilling their moral duties to do
so, both in settling the content of its rules and principles and in the procedures and
institutions by which they make and administer it. Natural law theories all
understand law as a remedy against the great evils of, on the one side anarchy
(lawlessness), and on the other side tyranny. And one of tyranny’s characteristic
forms is the co-optation of law to deploy it as a mask for fundamentally lawless
decisions cloaked in the forms of law and legality.
A natural law moral theory will give an account of the way in which first principles
of practical reason take on a moral force by being considered, not one by one but in
their united (“integral”) directiveness. That integral directiveness is given specific
1
(albeit highly general) articulation in principles such as the injunction to love one’s
neighbor as oneself; or the Golden Rule of doing for others what you would want
them to do for you and not doing to others what you would not have them do to
you; or the “categorical imperatives” to respect, and treat as intrinsically valuable,
humanity (the basic aspects of human flourishing) in oneself and in others, so that
each of one’s communities is treated as a kingdom of ends—of persons each ends
in themselves. Such high-level but far from contentless moral principles can be
given further specificity in two ways (1) by identifying what, given some broadly
stable features of human reality, they entail (see 1.2–4), and (2) by a rational but
more or less non-deductive selection among alternative specifications, a selection
named by Aquinas determinatio (plural, determinationes).

Understanding Natural Law Theory

Natural law is a theory of ethics that says that human beings possess intrinsic
values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law holds that there are
universal moral standards that are inherent in humankind throughout all time, and
these standards should form the basis of a just society.
Human beings are not taught natural law per se, but rather we “discover” it by
consistently making choices for good instead of evil. Some schools of thought
believe that natural law is passed to humans via a divine presence.

Examples
Examples of natural law theory abound, but philosophers and theologians
throughout history have differed in their interpretations of this doctrine.
Theoretically, the precepts of natural law should be constant throughout time and
across the globe because natural law is based on human nature, not on culture or
customs.

2
When a child tearfully exclaims, “It’s not fair [that]..." or when viewing a
documentary about the suffering of war, we feel pain because we're reminded of
the horrors of human evil. And in doing this, we are also providing evidence for
the existence of natural law. A well-accepted example of natural law in our
society is that it is wrong for one person to kill another person.
Also in the U.S. constitution, the right of citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness is a motto based on natural law. In the penal code, certain crimes are
almost universally accepted as punishable, including murder and rape.

IS IT RATIONAL TO HAVE LAWS REGULATE MODERN SOCIETIES?

Yes! It is rational to have laws regulate modern societies. Law acts as a code of
conduct in society, which is why it is so important. It was also established to
provide appropriate standards and regulations for every one’s behavior and to
ensure the government’s three branches’ equity.
It guarantees that civilization runs smoothly. Natural selection and survival would
have prevailed if there had been no rule, and everyone would have been left to
their own devices. This isn’t a desired way of life, for the most part. The law is
important because it establishes a socially acceptable standard. Conflicts between
social groups and communities would exist even if they didn’t exist. We must be
steadfast in our commitment. It is simple to adapt to societal changes thanks to the
law.
Law has undoubtedly functioned as a catalyst in the processes of people’s social
development, with notable instances including the reduction of caste differences,
protective measures for both the weak and powerless, and providing for the
civilized existence of those existing in unsanitary conditions. The country’s
economy, values, and beliefs of society, as well as its economical, political, and

3
societal components, all change as a result of social change. Social change, on the
other hand, doesn’t affect various areas of society in the same way.
1. Laws serve as the standard for acceptable behaviors in society: At its most
fundamental level, the law is about resolving disputes. When making rules,
communities must consider what causes disagreement. Some crimes, such as theft
and murder, are self-evident and have also been codified in laws dating back to
ancient times.
However, as time passes and societies evolve, so does what is deemed acceptable.
Legal systems evolve to provide clarity and justification for activities that are
considered wrong. They also include instructions for suitable repercussions.
2. Laws provide access to justice in society: If it is illegal to strike someone in
the face, the person who is punched has options other than merely drifting back.
Justice is equitable in an ideal world. It makes no difference who was punched or
who was the puncher.
The fact that the statute prohibiting striking was broken is all that mattered.
Everybody in a society – not only a select few – should have equitable access to
the legal system.
3. Laws protect the most vulnerable in society: Many laws have been enacted to
safeguard distinct groups of individuals. Discrimination is banned under laws such
as the Civil Rights Legislation and the Sex Discrimination Act. Negative rights, or
the right to liberty of perhaps discrimination, are protected by such types of
legislation.
Discrimination can happen to everyone, but as history has shown, some people are
much more vulnerable than others. Laws established to protect various groups
from race discrimination, sexuality, gender, religion, and other factors safeguard
them and improve their equality of opportunity.

4
4. Laws are important to maintain peace in society: We discussed how the law
is fundamentally about resolving disputes earlier in this article. As a result, the law
is necessary for keeping the peace. This is because injustice is a source of conflict.
People are going to suffer and then become unsatisfied with the government if
detrimental habits are allowed to thrive without intervention. Inequitable
application of justice adds fuel to the fires of strife. For the sake of tranquility,
communities must develop and guarantee that now the rule of law is applied fairly.
5. Modernization and societal progress are aided by the law: Law is also
important in the society because it acts as a catalyst for modernization and social
progress. It’s also a reminder of the concept of societal unpredictability and the
professional challenges that come with it, as well as a boost to our faith in the
deeply embedded panchayat system. The abolition of authoritarian practices like
unapproachability, child marriage, endowment, and so on are common examples of
societal reform. It is becoming a reality in the United States as a result of
legislation.

5
 REFERENCES

Alexy, Robert, 2002, The Argument from Injustice: A Reply to Legal Positivism,

Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bentham, Jeremy, 1776, A Fragment on Government, ed. J.H. Burns and H.L.A.
Hart, London, Athlone Press, 1977.

Brink, David, 1985, “Legal Positivism and Natural Law Reconsidered,” The

Monist, 68: 364–387.

Crowe, Jonathan, 2019, Natural Law and the Nature of Law, Cambridge & New
York, Cambridge University Press.

Finnis, John, 1980, Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2nd
ed., with same pagination and a Postscript, 2011.

George, Robert, (ed.), 1992, Natural Law Theory: Contemporary Essays, Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Green, Leslie, and Adams, Thomas, 2019, “Legal Positivism”, The Stanford

Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/legal-
positivism/>.

Lewis, V. Bradley, 2006, “Plato’s Minos: The Political and Philosophical Context
of the Problem of Natural Right”, Review of Metaphysics, 60: 17–53.

Raz, Joseph, 1980, The Concept of a Legal System: An Introduction to the Theory

of Legal System, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.