When we speak of natural law we find ourselves faced with a tricky concept to handle at first.
But it is essential to truly understand the liberal philosophy.
If you do not understand the concept of natural law, liberal ideas appear to float in the air without any real foundation, they can be swept with a wave of the hand, they may be swept away by a breeze or statist Socialist.
Natural law is opposed to positive law (that is really more clear now).
Positive law is what is created intentionally by man. In fact by the legislature or the state.
is the law knows that in fact the huge pile of legislation that appears to us to digest. And regulates many things, sometimes a lot, even down to the smallest details of life.
This law made by man can take a lot of aspects. This can be as simple rules to facilitate relationships between individuals, such as commercial transactions. Or orders, prohibitions, requirements. A positive law may be segregated, as in the days of apartheid in South Africa during Nazi Germany.
In fact a positive law is passed or enacted by a group of legislators or a tyrant and the force applied by the state has (If you do not respect the law you are illegally).
course, with this definition, any law can not be good! They can be mean, nasty, negative ...
But how we define what is right and what is evil (wide debate!)? And I'm not going deeper into this complex subject.
Hitler thought to do well when he exterminated the Jews, was in agreement with his moral code, it has enacted legislation in this sense according to its principles. These laws were (and still are) in contradiction with the principles of Human Rights which are based on natural law.
Natural law is what has not been created by humans. It is an inherent right of man, he is there, before the creation of any society, therefore the law. No one has created, such as water or land, it is "natural".
And when we use water and land to create things, you're forced to meet their minimum properties (the laws of physics for example).
It's the same positive law, created by Man, it must respect the properties of natural law.
laws of physics can not be modified, by cons it is used to create. Natural law can not be modified, cons it is used as a basis for developing our positive law.
You will object, rightly, that this concept of natural law, which is abstract, has been invented by man.
At first glance, it's true.
But this natural right is based on the nature of man, it has not been established.
What is this natural right to wield against a positive law which violates the same natural law. To ensure that the person voting and applies the law could not vote or apply any law, he must discipline himself to certain principles. It must respect the natural rights of men.
"A government of laws not of men" according to James Harrington . The rule of law or rule of law of John Locke .
And why should it be considered natural. Because if he was not facing a positive right, could I opposed another law? A law created by man against another law created by man, who is right in this case? The strongest, as Hobbes would say . The reign of the arbitrary. Instead
natural law is universal, common to all men, ubiquitous.
As in physics, engineering and Chinese American engineer can discuss and oppose the construction of an airplane, but they are obliged to respect the laws of physics, that they are universal (and very useful to fly an airplane).
And as I said, natural law is based on the nature of man, which itself is objective, universal and undeniable.
The Rights of Man.
What we put into these rights?
This is an opportunity for a new ticket.
But it is essential to truly understand the liberal philosophy.
If you do not understand the concept of natural law, liberal ideas appear to float in the air without any real foundation, they can be swept with a wave of the hand, they may be swept away by a breeze or statist Socialist.
Natural law is opposed to positive law (that is really more clear now).
Positive law is what is created intentionally by man. In fact by the legislature or the state.
is the law knows that in fact the huge pile of legislation that appears to us to digest. And regulates many things, sometimes a lot, even down to the smallest details of life.
This law made by man can take a lot of aspects. This can be as simple rules to facilitate relationships between individuals, such as commercial transactions. Or orders, prohibitions, requirements. A positive law may be segregated, as in the days of apartheid in South Africa during Nazi Germany.
In fact a positive law is passed or enacted by a group of legislators or a tyrant and the force applied by the state has (If you do not respect the law you are illegally).
course, with this definition, any law can not be good! They can be mean, nasty, negative ...
But how we define what is right and what is evil (wide debate!)? And I'm not going deeper into this complex subject.
Hitler thought to do well when he exterminated the Jews, was in agreement with his moral code, it has enacted legislation in this sense according to its principles. These laws were (and still are) in contradiction with the principles of Human Rights which are based on natural law.
Natural law is what has not been created by humans. It is an inherent right of man, he is there, before the creation of any society, therefore the law. No one has created, such as water or land, it is "natural".
And when we use water and land to create things, you're forced to meet their minimum properties (the laws of physics for example).
It's the same positive law, created by Man, it must respect the properties of natural law.
laws of physics can not be modified, by cons it is used to create. Natural law can not be modified, cons it is used as a basis for developing our positive law.
You will object, rightly, that this concept of natural law, which is abstract, has been invented by man.
At first glance, it's true.
But this natural right is based on the nature of man, it has not been established.
What is this natural right to wield against a positive law which violates the same natural law. To ensure that the person voting and applies the law could not vote or apply any law, he must discipline himself to certain principles. It must respect the natural rights of men.
"A government of laws not of men" according to James Harrington . The rule of law or rule of law of John Locke .
And why should it be considered natural. Because if he was not facing a positive right, could I opposed another law? A law created by man against another law created by man, who is right in this case? The strongest, as Hobbes would say . The reign of the arbitrary. Instead
natural law is universal, common to all men, ubiquitous.
As in physics, engineering and Chinese American engineer can discuss and oppose the construction of an airplane, but they are obliged to respect the laws of physics, that they are universal (and very useful to fly an airplane).
And as I said, natural law is based on the nature of man, which itself is objective, universal and undeniable.
The Rights of Man.
What we put into these rights?
This is an opportunity for a new ticket.
0 comments:
Post a Comment