Rendering Unto Caesar: Natural Law vs. Artificial Law
One morning, while purchasing coffee at a local watering hole, I heard a fundamentalist say something about man's law vs. God's law. At the time I marveled how people come up with such sharp distinctions. Freedom of religion deserves no respect because it is something that human beings came up with. Stoning sinners, on the other hand, is a duty required of the devout by their material Creator. It is a law that must be considered with the utmost respect. One of my favorite of such "divine" commandments is the one about not suffering a witch to live. The most fascinating aspect of the commandment is that recognition of witchcraft is itself a form of witchcraft. Of course the witch who recognizes the the other witch would not identify himself as a witch except through the process of accusing the other of witchcraft.
The issue of different types of laws came up when some of our students were discussing a platonic dialog on the issue of social justice. The libertarian character in the dialog supported his position with an appeal to "natural" law over artificial law. He contended that it is natural for stronger people to deny weaker people a proportional share in the common wealth. Their natural ability to dominate confers a natural right to hoard stuff and keep weaker people in desperation and dependency. This special status applies to those who are smart enough to make subtly exploitative labor contracts and other business deals. Unfortunately the dialog resorts to a machina ex deus argument to persuade its audience that distributive social injustice hurts the perpetrator more than the victim. It depends on postmortem suffering in an imaginary domain of torment. A more effective argument might be to appeal to natural law to point out that it would only be natural for the weak victims to sneak in and slit the throats of the strong in their sleep. The Sword of Damocles is a classic illustration of the strong fearing retaliation at the hands of the weak.
One of the big social justice issues of the current day is whether the strong have the right to deny marriage rights to the weak. An advocate of the bad boyz in Rome recently tried to tar the marriage equality issue with the red brush of utopian materialism. This could easily backfire since the Soviet Communists were as rabid in their anti-homosexuality as the Catholic hierarchy. The American Republican Party is divided between those who see support for marriage equality as important to the Party's future and those who do not. Illinois is poised to become the first heartland state to legislate marriage equality outside of court action. Catholics in Rhode Island fear that their state may no longer be the last New England state to deny marriage equality to homosexuals.
It is difficult to make a natural/artificial law distinction when it comes to marriage since the institution is innately artificial. What it comes down to is whether it is natural or artificial to make a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals when it comes to recognition as human beings. Is it natural to view homosexuals as fractionally human to the point that they do not deserve the same rights as everyone else? Or is that an artificial condition that has been programmed into the popular imagination (and the imagination of Roman power players)?
Links: A pro-Vatican pundit compares marriage equality to Communism. Differences in the GOP over the issue of marriage equality. Difficulties faced by marriage equality in the Illinois legislature. A Rhode Island bishop calls for maintaining marriage inequality.
The issue of different types of laws came up when some of our students were discussing a platonic dialog on the issue of social justice. The libertarian character in the dialog supported his position with an appeal to "natural" law over artificial law. He contended that it is natural for stronger people to deny weaker people a proportional share in the common wealth. Their natural ability to dominate confers a natural right to hoard stuff and keep weaker people in desperation and dependency. This special status applies to those who are smart enough to make subtly exploitative labor contracts and other business deals. Unfortunately the dialog resorts to a machina ex deus argument to persuade its audience that distributive social injustice hurts the perpetrator more than the victim. It depends on postmortem suffering in an imaginary domain of torment. A more effective argument might be to appeal to natural law to point out that it would only be natural for the weak victims to sneak in and slit the throats of the strong in their sleep. The Sword of Damocles is a classic illustration of the strong fearing retaliation at the hands of the weak.
One of the big social justice issues of the current day is whether the strong have the right to deny marriage rights to the weak. An advocate of the bad boyz in Rome recently tried to tar the marriage equality issue with the red brush of utopian materialism. This could easily backfire since the Soviet Communists were as rabid in their anti-homosexuality as the Catholic hierarchy. The American Republican Party is divided between those who see support for marriage equality as important to the Party's future and those who do not. Illinois is poised to become the first heartland state to legislate marriage equality outside of court action. Catholics in Rhode Island fear that their state may no longer be the last New England state to deny marriage equality to homosexuals.
It is difficult to make a natural/artificial law distinction when it comes to marriage since the institution is innately artificial. What it comes down to is whether it is natural or artificial to make a distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals when it comes to recognition as human beings. Is it natural to view homosexuals as fractionally human to the point that they do not deserve the same rights as everyone else? Or is that an artificial condition that has been programmed into the popular imagination (and the imagination of Roman power players)?
Links: A pro-Vatican pundit compares marriage equality to Communism. Differences in the GOP over the issue of marriage equality. Difficulties faced by marriage equality in the Illinois legislature. A Rhode Island bishop calls for maintaining marriage inequality.