Natural Rights and Natural Law
Mar 14, 2021 10:53:15 GMT -6
Post by Todd on Mar 14, 2021 10:53:15 GMT -6
Natural, or Universal Law answers, in human beings, to what we call instinct in animals. Like instincts, Natural Law is a set of predetermined, species-specific, patterns of behavior. They are written on the hearts if not on the very genes of the species. The fly in the ointment is the fact that because human beings are apparently the only species with a choice regarding adherence to their natural behavior patterns, those patterns are frequently and deliberately set aside.
Natural Laws are based upon rights, not on mere desires. There is a difference between being entitled to live without the threat of violence, and supposing that one is free to do as he chooses with impunity. The difference is that the former is universal in its definition and application, and the latter is not. The first guarantees a standard set of behaviors unlimited in the extent of their application, the breach of which is indefensible, while the other is determined by accident, i.e. its being unique to the will of the individual.
Recognition of the fact that theft is wrong is universal, and can be expressed in universal terms. To believe people should be able to do as they want, may capriciously and wrongly put others at risk, allowing personal and individual desires to govern behavior, rather than preserving personal rights.
A quick assessment of natural rights shows that (1) the positive statement of a right implies a law that is stated in negative terms. The “right to life” implies the illegality, or immorality, and hence the punishable nature, of behavior such as murder. (2) because such entitlements, or rights, are universal, so are the laws that protect them. Rights, or entitlements, are universal, so protective pronouncements must therefore be expressed as universal law. So whatever natural rights we have that others will not respect, we have both the right and the responsibility to protect. That is, positive, universal entitlements are protected by negative, universal laws. These laws may take many particular forms, both in content and in language. Beyond this is the right to self defense. This is objectivity.
The supposed “right” to do as one chooses unavoidably lapses into private behavior that is neither constrained by universality, or protected by negative law. This is subjectivity.
And man-made laws? These should not be obeyed blindly without concern for outcomes or human needs. The day may be closer than we would like to think when Christians must choose between obedience to immoral laws and obedience to God, and the universal law written on his man’s heart. Man-made laws are like poker hands, and as we know, “you’ve got to know when to hold ‘em (Joshua 24:15), know when to fold ‘em (Esther 3:2, 4:16), know when to walk away (Genesis 19:15-16), know when to run” (Genesis 39-7-12).
For a better look at the subject, go to the Bible Research Web Site from the menu ribbon above, then go to for those who like to read, then to Essays and Short Works, and scroll down to the paper "On The Law," and click the highlighted title.
- Todd
Natural Laws are based upon rights, not on mere desires. There is a difference between being entitled to live without the threat of violence, and supposing that one is free to do as he chooses with impunity. The difference is that the former is universal in its definition and application, and the latter is not. The first guarantees a standard set of behaviors unlimited in the extent of their application, the breach of which is indefensible, while the other is determined by accident, i.e. its being unique to the will of the individual.
Recognition of the fact that theft is wrong is universal, and can be expressed in universal terms. To believe people should be able to do as they want, may capriciously and wrongly put others at risk, allowing personal and individual desires to govern behavior, rather than preserving personal rights.
A quick assessment of natural rights shows that (1) the positive statement of a right implies a law that is stated in negative terms. The “right to life” implies the illegality, or immorality, and hence the punishable nature, of behavior such as murder. (2) because such entitlements, or rights, are universal, so are the laws that protect them. Rights, or entitlements, are universal, so protective pronouncements must therefore be expressed as universal law. So whatever natural rights we have that others will not respect, we have both the right and the responsibility to protect. That is, positive, universal entitlements are protected by negative, universal laws. These laws may take many particular forms, both in content and in language. Beyond this is the right to self defense. This is objectivity.
The supposed “right” to do as one chooses unavoidably lapses into private behavior that is neither constrained by universality, or protected by negative law. This is subjectivity.
And man-made laws? These should not be obeyed blindly without concern for outcomes or human needs. The day may be closer than we would like to think when Christians must choose between obedience to immoral laws and obedience to God, and the universal law written on his man’s heart. Man-made laws are like poker hands, and as we know, “you’ve got to know when to hold ‘em (Joshua 24:15), know when to fold ‘em (Esther 3:2, 4:16), know when to walk away (Genesis 19:15-16), know when to run” (Genesis 39-7-12).
For a better look at the subject, go to the Bible Research Web Site from the menu ribbon above, then go to for those who like to read, then to Essays and Short Works, and scroll down to the paper "On The Law," and click the highlighted title.
- Todd