 |
Young People, Relativism, and Natural Law
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
8
For most informants, the natural law implies only itself. One should not lie,
cheat, or steal if that is going to cost another person his life, liberty, or large amounts of his property. But if the result is that the liar gets better grades and a better job, so be it. Not every informant concluded in this way, but a surprising number did.
Why? Because metaphysical biology is quite literally superficial,
concerning only the basics we share as embodied humans. Metaphysical biology is lacking in the teleological structure that has traditionally defined natural law, and almost totally lacking in the complex narrative structure that has taken the place of teleology in the work of MacIntyre (1981) and others. Jacques Maritain (2001, 29), the most brilliant Thomist of the last century, exemplifies both traditions when he calls the natural law “the ideal formula of development of a given being.” Natural law doesn’t just characterize the stories we have in common. Natural law anticipates the stories we could have in common if we were to develop ourselves more perfectly and completely.
Metaphysical biology, while having a teleological structure—to be born is
already to share equally and rightfully in the goods of life, liberty, and security, an assumption that presumes a lifetime—gets stuck at the beginning, evidently because it is so biological, so body-based. In this respect, metaphysical biology comes close to Hobbes’ account of the fear of violent death that unites us all under the sovereign. Hobbes (1968, xxxx) understands his account in Leviathanas being entirely in accord with the natural law, and others, such as Norberto Bobbio (1993), have interpreted Hobbes in this vein. But it is a vein that runs no deeper, and more importantly can run no deeper, than Hart’s positivistic natural law. That is, no deeper than the metaphysical biology of most of my informants.
What about the significant minority of informants who, when pushed, did
not invoke metaphysical biology as the final answer to my series of “why” questions? Instead, most of these respondents (a majority of the minority) answered as the new natural law theorists do. If someone hasn’t already figured out that everyone is better off when all subscribe to the social contract, then further argument is unlikely to convince them. In other words, a significant minority of informants treat the social contract as a basic good in itself, the term John Finnis (1980) and Robert George (1992) use to refer to something whose goodness does not need to be explained or argued for, such as health. Indeed, I believe these informants represent progress over the new natural law, a term used to refer to the theories of Finnis and George, because these informants regard the social contract, a relationship, as itself a basic good. Though the goods of friendship and family, endorsed by both Finnis and George, requires that I qualify my generalization, for the most part their examples of basic goods concern individual or non-relational goods, such as health.
Excursus on the New Natural Law
For many, traditional natural law theory is no longer compelling because it rests on the naturalistic fallacy, the derivation of ought from is. Even if human nature is constructed roughly along the lines described by Aristotle and Aquinas, there
|
| |
| |
|
|
8
For most informants, the natural law implies only itself. One should not lie,
cheat, or steal if that is going to cost another person his life, liberty, or large
amounts of his property. But if the result is that the liar gets better grades and a
better job, so be it. Not every informant concluded in this way, but a surprising
number did.
Why? Because metaphysical biology is quite literally superficial,
concerning only the basics we share as embodied humans. Metaphysical
biology is lacking in the teleological structure that has traditionally defined natural
law, and almost totally lacking in the complex narrative structure that has taken
the place of teleology in the work of MacIntyre (1981) and others. Jacques
Maritain (2001, 29), the most brilliant Thomist of the last century, exemplifies
both traditions when he calls the natural law “the ideal formula of development of
a given being.” Natural law doesn’t just characterize the stories we have in
common. Natural law anticipates the stories we could have in common if we
were to develop ourselves more perfectly and completely.
Metaphysical biology, while having a teleological structure—to be born is
already to share equally and rightfully in the goods of life, liberty, and security, an
assumption that presumes a lifetime—gets stuck at the beginning, evidently
because it is so biological, so body-based. In this respect, metaphysical biology
comes close to Hobbes’ account of the fear of violent death that unites us all
under the sovereign. Hobbes (1968, xxxx) understands his account in Leviathan
as being entirely in accord with the natural law, and others, such as Norberto
Bobbio (1993), have interpreted Hobbes in this vein. But it is a vein that runs no
deeper, and more importantly can run no deeper, than Hart’s positivistic natural
law. That is, no deeper than the metaphysical biology of most of my informants.
What about the significant minority of informants who, when pushed, did
not invoke metaphysical biology as the final answer to my series of “why”
questions? Instead, most of these respondents (a majority of the minority)
answered as the new natural law theorists do. If someone hasn’t already figured
out that everyone is better off when all subscribe to the social contract, then
further argument is unlikely to convince them. In other words, a significant
minority of informants treat the social contract as a basic good in itself, the term
John Finnis (1980) and Robert George (1992) use to refer to something whose
goodness does not need to be explained or argued for, such as health. Indeed, I
believe these informants represent progress over the new natural law, a term
used to refer to the theories of Finnis and George, because these informants
regard the social contract, a relationship, as itself a basic good. Though the
goods of friendship and family, endorsed by both Finnis and George, requires
that I qualify my generalization, for the most part their examples of basic goods
concern individual or non-relational goods, such as health.
Excursus on the New Natural Law
For many, traditional natural law theory is no longer compelling because it rests
on the naturalistic fallacy, the derivation of ought from is. Even if human nature
is constructed roughly along the lines described by Aristotle and Aquinas, there
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
