Natural Law

1.

TOPIC FOR TODAY: “Natural Law”
• One question on in-class writing (about Heinz)
• Lecture/discussion on ”Natural Law Notes” I uploaded
• Hart’s response to natural law theory
• Civil disobedience
• Short writing

2.

One question on in-class writing
Some of you wrote about Heinz.
Thought question:
Did Heinz have the normative attitude toward law?

3.

Another point about in-class writing
Each week
your notebooks are getting more valuable
--to me, anyway—
so please make sure
to give them to me at the end of each lesson.
(Give them to me, or put them in the pile of notebooks.)
I will do my best not to lose them.

4.

Another preliminary point
As you know,
I uploaded short versions
of the judges’ opinions in an American case.
You don’t have to read these for the module.

5.

Another preliminary point
If anybody reads the opinions
and wants to talk about them with me,
I invite you to email me at [email protected]
to make an appointment to meet me in my office
(Building 3, Room 235).

6.

Another preliminary point
I extend the same invitation
to anyone who wants to talk to me
about anything that they do not understand
in the
readings/exercises,
slides,
or the discussions in the lessons.

7.

Another preliminary point
To organize part of your review of Hart, I recommend that you review-• Slides #73 and #74 in the lesson on 14/3/23, titled:
“[#73] Questions to check your understanding of the rule of
recognition, acceptance of the legal system as a whole, and the
legally healthy society”; and [#74]“Points to remember from Hart.”
If you don’t understand those points, please talk to me.

8.

Review from the last lesson:
What do you say about the “Slave Law” and the “Apartheid Law”?
Do you say, with Hart, that-Even though these enactments are unjust
they are laws,
but bad laws;
or
Because they are unjust,
they should not be considered laws at all?

9.

”Natural law”
This is the question posed by the “natural law” tradition.

10.

”Natural law”
What is “natural law”?

11.

“Natural law” is also known as…
• Law “according to nature”
--Aristotle, died 322 before the Common Era
• “Law of Nature”
--Stoic philosophers
(from early 3rd century B.C.E.
--Hugo Grotius, Holland, died 1645
• “Common” law
--Aristotle
--Zeno of Citium, died around 262 B.C.E.
• The “universal” law
--Zeno of Citium
--Cicero, died 43 B.C.E
• The “eternal” law
--Cicero
• The “Law of Reason”
--Stoic philosophers
• The ”moral law of nature”
--Cicero
• The “law of virtue”
--Cicero

12.

These names suggest the main features of natural law…
• “Natural” (according to nature)
• “Eternal” (valid always and forever)
• “Common,” “universal”
• According to “Reason”(rational)
• “Moral” (according to morality)
(valid for everyone, everywhere)

13.

Natural law
But what do these words mean when they are applied to law?

14.

These words distinguish “natural law” from “positive” law:
(”posited”=put forward, asserted; somebody has to make it the law)
POSITIVE LAW
NATURAL LAW
• Enacted (made by human beings)
• Not enacted (that is what is meant by
“according to nature”; “eternal”;
“rational”)
• “Particular” (applies only to specific
people, in a specific place, at a specific
time
• And BECAUSE it is natural, eternal,
rational, natural law is:
• “Universal” (applies to everyone,
everywhere, at all times)
• In other words, it is “common” to all
humanity
• “Moral” (it says how people should
behave towards one another)

15.

Natural law
But all this still does not tell us
in what sense
natural law is “natural”; or, “eternal,” or “rational.”
What do these words mean, as applied to law?

16.

Natural law
So, we still have the questions:
What’s natural about natural law?
And: What does it mean to say, natural law is “eternal,” or “rational”?

17.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
For the Stoic philosophers,
Nature exists and develops over time,
according to underlying rational principles (principles of Reason)
(think of the scientific view of the natural world)…

18.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
For example:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
(Сила = масса X ускорение ?)

19.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
Is that how “natural law” is natural?
Is “natural law” a like a physical law of nature?

20.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
If not, what does it mean to say natural law
is the set of underlying rational principles of the world
(principles of Reason)?

21.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
Well, Reason was considered not just a mental ability
that people used, to think about the world…

22.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
Rather, Reason
(in the sense of a set of rational principles)
was considered
to be (or at least to tell us)
the structure of the world.

23.

Natural law
One sense in which “natural” law is natural:
Is “natural law” natural like that?
(That’s the part about natural law I find hard to understand.)

24.

Natural law
The sense in which natural law was the “moral law”:
How about natural law as the “moral law”?

25.

Natural law
The sense in which natural law was the “moral law”:
Among the rational principles underlying Nature,
the Stoics thought,
were the principles of the moral law.
The moral law, they thought, is not a product of human opinion:
“Nature herself is the foundation of justice” (Cicero)

26.

Natural law
But is the moral “law”
similar to
the laws of physics or chemistry?
(Consider my marker…)

27.

Natural law
We know people’s relation to natural law is not like that.

28.

The sense in which natural law is “eternal”:
Because natural law was rational law
(instead of having been enacted by people
in a particular place at a particular time),
it was considered “eternal.”

29.

Natural law
The sense in which natural law is “universal,” ”common” to all humanity:
Just as* Reason
(remember: = the underlying rational principles of Nature)
was considered to be the same
everywhere and always,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
• Note the analogy (Just as…)

30.

Natural law
The sense in which natural law is “universal,” ”common” to all humanity:
The moral law of Reason was considered binding* on
(= obligatory on; or, required to be obeyed by)
everyone, everywhere and always.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=
* This answers my marker point.

31.

Natural law
Because the moral law of Reason
was considered to be a law of Nature
(in the sense of being binding on
everyone, everywhere and always),
positive law that failed to conform to morality, was considered
inconsistent with Nature.

32.

Natural law
Conclusion:
Therefore,
according to some,
positive law that fails to conform to morality
is not valid
(in the sense of genuine; real; binding)
law.

33.

Natural law
“A law which is not just does not seem to me to be a law.”
(Augustine, died in the year 430)

34.

Natural law
Another sense in which natural law is natural: nature in the sense of human nature
(This part about natural law I find easier to understand)
Human beings are part of Nature.
As such, they have their own human nature,
which has two features:
[1] Humans by nature, are social: they tend to live together in society
[2] Humans, by nature, are also rational
(in contrast to animals, humans use reasoning)

35.

Natural law
Another sense in which natural law is natural: nature in the sense of human nature
Because human beings are social,
society has to be organized somehow.
Because human beings are also rational,
society has to be organized in a rational way.
That is, on the basis of underlying rational principles
(just as the natural world as a whole exists, and develops over time,
according to underlying rational principles).

36.

Natural law
Another sense in which natural law is natural: nature in the sense of human nature
But what are the rational principles
for the organization of society?

37.

Natural law
We’ve been talking about the status of natural law,
about what kind of “law” it is.
What about the content of natural law?
What are the rational principles
for the organization of society?

38.

Natural law
The idea
that natural law gives us
the principles
that are necessary
for the rational regulation of any society,…

39.

Natural law
…gives us a hint
about the content of natural law.

40.

Natural law
From the exercise:
Think of some examples of principles
that natural law thinkers would consider principles of natural law…

41.

Principles of natural law
• Examples from Grotius
• (Think of them as necessary conditions for the rational regulation of any society)
• People should “refrain from injuring one another” (physical assault
and killing)
• ”Leaving to another that which belongs to him”; “the abstaining [=not
taking] from that which is another’s (theft)
• It is “wrong for a man to set a snare [=a trap] for a fellow man” (fraud)
• Keeping “pacts [=agreements]”; “the obligation to fulfill promises”

42.

Principles of natural law
• More examples from Grotius:
• ”the [returning] to another of anything of his which we may have,
together with any gain which we may have received from it”
[obligation to make restitution)]
• “the making good of a loss incurred through our fault” [obligation to
compensate for injury]
• “the inflicting of penalties upon men according to [what they
deserve]” [society’s responsibility to impose fair punishment]

43.

Principles of natural law
Given the features of natural law
--universal, eternal, conditions for the rational regulation of any society-do you see why these principles
were considered part of natural law?

44.

How do human beings know the principles of natural law…?
The next question is:
How do people know the principles of natural law?

45.

How do human beings know the principles of natural law?
• Human beings are intelligent; they have reason, which includes
“right reason” (“right reason” is not a normal English expression)
• “[N]ature [has] not merely given us reason, but right
reason.”…what we call Law,” “is nothing else than right reason
enjoining [=commanding] what is good, and forbidding what is
evil.” (Cicero)
• Follows Cicero on ”right reason”: “The law of nature is a dictate
[=a command] of right reason, which points out that an act” is
either good or bad (Grotius)

46.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
But how do we know?

47.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
How did you come up with the principles you came up with?
Why did you believe that the principles you came up with,
would be considered part of the natural law?

48.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Grotius mentions four ways…

49.

Ways of knowing the principles of natural law:
First way
The basic principles of natural law are
self-evident, obvious
(“Right reason” just tells us.)
(Remember the examples of principles of natural law:
don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.)

50.

Ways of knowing the principles of natural law requires:
Second way
The empirical method-By observing general agreement among nations
(on things like the prohibition of murder and theft).
This shows “the common sense of mankind.”

51.

Ways of knowing the principles of natural law:
Third way
Remember:
By nature, human beings
tend to live in society, and
are rational.
So, society needs to be organized according to rational principles.
Therefore, a question that points the way
to the principles of natural law is…

52.

Third way, continued:
What are the necessary conditions for an ordered society?
• Grotius says: “no association of men can be maintained without law.”
• For example, to take away from another in order to gain an
advantage for oneself is contrary to nature: “if this should happen,
human society and the common good would of necessity be
destroyed”:
• Regarding the prohibition on mutual injury: “society can exist in
safety only through the mutual love and protection of the parts of
which it is composed.”

53.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Fourth way
As we have seen,
Grotius describes the natural law
as something we–
[1] “just know (because we know the difference between good and evil);
[2] can observe; or
[3] can derive from the necessary conditions for any society to exist.

54.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Fourth way, continued
But sometimes,
to know what the natural law requires,
in addition to knowing the difference between good and evil,
we have to be able to--

55.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Fourth way, continued
--reason according to general principles;
reason about the ends of action and
effective means to achieve them; and
exercise a “well-tempered
(here, = moderate, balanced, refined by experience)
judgment.”*
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*Points ahead to Unit 2, Legal reasoning. What do judges do? –They exercise judgment!

56.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Fourth way, continued
It makes sense that reasoning is sometimes required
to know what the natural law is.
Even if principles of natural law, or morality
(like don’t kill, don’t steal)
seem obvious,
that doesn’t mean that in every case,
we always know immediately
what is the right thing to do.

57.

Ways of knowing what natural law requires:
Fourth way, continued
Sometimes we have to think about it.
(An occasion for critical thinking.)

58.

Another strand of natural law
Zeno of Citium (died around 262 before the Common Era)
taught that we should consider all people
fellow citizens under a common law.
What does this mean?

59.

Another strand of natural law
An interpretation:
Zeno’s teaching
that human beings should observe a common law
is based on
the idea of “an ideal law
(here, “ideal law” = a perfect law that exists in thought)…

60.

Another strand of natural law
An interpretation:
...which could only become actual, or real,
if men were purely rational,”
that is, if they acted only according
To Reason.

61.

Another strand of natural law
An interpretation:
“Among these ideal principles
was that of equality.
By nature,
and as reasonable creatures,
all human beings were equal.
By nature
the woman was equal to the man,
and the slave to the master.”
(From Ernest Barker, “Translator’s Introduction” to Otto Gierke, Natural Law And The Theory Of Society 1500-1800 (1950), p. xxxvi))

62.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The idea that human beings were equal
was a radical idea:
it challenged accepted beliefs
about human beings
in a fundamental way.

63.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The natural law idea of equality
is the seed of the idea of natural rights
—or, as natural rights are more usually known today,
as human rights—
specific ways
people are to be respected
by other people,
and by governments…

64.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
…just because they are human.

65.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The natural law idea of equality
grew,
over the centuries,
into the idea of
natural,
and then human,
rights.

66.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The natural law idea of equality
has inspired,
or become part of, positive law.

67.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
Examples…?

68.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
Examples…?
Test your knowledge…

69.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
“We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their creator
with certain unalienable rights*…”
From…?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* “unalienable rights”=rights that cannot be given away, or taken away

70.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The American Declaration of Independence (1776)
But don’t forget:
The Declaration of Independence was not law;
and before the Civil War, America had slavery.
The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
guaranteeing “the equal protection of the laws”
was not adopted until three years after the Civil War (1868).

71.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
“All human beings are born free
and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed* with reason and conscience and
should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood.”
From…?
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
* “They are endowed with”=they are provided with, are given; or they have

72.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
of the United Nations
Article 1 (1948)

73.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
“All citizens…shall have equal rights and freedoms,
and shall be equal before the law,
without discrimination
by sex, race, nationality, language, religion,
social origin, convictions, individual and social status.”
From…?

74.

The natural law seed of the idea of equality
Конституция Республики Узбекистан, Статья 18 (1992)
Все граждане Республики Узбекистан имеют одинаковые
права и свободы и равны перед законом без различия пола,
расы, национальности, языка, религии, социального
происхождения, убеждений, личного и общественного
положения.

75.

Natural law today
Let’s return to the ”Slave Law”
and the “Apartheid Law”
with which we began.

76.

Virginia Slave Law
"All servants imported and brought into the Country...who were not Christians
in their native Country...shall be…slaves. All Negro, mulatto* and Indian slaves
within this dominion...shall be held to be real estate [=the Legal English for
property in land). If any slave resist his master...correcting such slave, and shall
happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all
punishment...as if such accident never happened."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*An offensive word of the time; a person of mixed white and black ancestry, especially a person with one
white and one black parent.

77.

Apartheid Law
From “The Reservation of Separate Amenities Act (South Africa, 1953)
(1) Any person who is in charge of or has control of any public
premises or any public vehicle, …may,…set apart* or reserve such
premises or such vehicle or any portion of such premises or such
vehicle …for the exclusive use of persons belonging to a particular
race or class.
(2) Any person who wilfully enters or uses any public premises or
public vehicle …which has in terms of sub-section (1) been set
apart or reserved for the exclusive use of persons belonging to a
particular race or class, being a race or class to which he does not
belong, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a
fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a period not
exceeding three months, or to both such fine and such fine and
such imprisonment.

78.

Now that you have heard about the natural law tradition…
Do you say, with Hart:
These unjust enactments are bad laws,
but they are laws—they have the status of law?

79.

Now that you have heard about the natural law tradition…
Or, do you say, with Augustine-“A law which is not just
does not seem to me to be a law”?

80.

Elmer’s case, again
Consider Elmer’s case again,
this time,
in light of the natural law theory of law,
or the natural law tradition.

81.

Elmer’s case, again
Was the majority influenced by a natural law theory of law?
(Or, at least,
by something in the natural law tradition?)…

82.

Elmer’s case, again
What theory of law influenced the dissent in Elmer’s case?...

83.

Elmer’s case, again
We could call the dissent’s theory: “The law is the law.”

84.

Elmer’s case, again
We could call the dissent’s theory: “The law is the law.”
It has another name.

85.

“Positivism”
The dissent in Elmer’s case
wanted to apply the law as enacted by the legislature,
even if that meant Elmer would get his grandfather’s property.
Do you remember what kind of law,
according to natural law thinkers,
had to be consistent with natural law, to be (real) law?...

86.

“Positivism”
Positive law,
which is the law that is posited, or made,
by human beings.

87.

“Positivism”
For that reason, Hart’s theory of law is known as “positivism.”
Hart was not the first legal positivist.
One of his main predecessors was John Austin (died 1859).

88.

“Positivism”
Austin said:
Some people say
(based on the natural law theory of law)
if human laws are inconsistent with the basic principles of morality,
those human laws are not laws.

89.

“Positivism”
But Austin replied:
Those people are talking "stark nonsense*."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*”stark nonsense” = чистейший вздор(?)

90.

“Positivism”
Why does Austin say that the natural law theory of law
is чистейший вздор?
Austin explains…

91.

“Positivism”
“…Suppose an act [here, = not a law, but just something a person does]
innocuous [harmless], or positively beneficial [good], be prohibited by the
sovereign [ruler, especially a king or a queen] under the penalty of death;
if I commit [do] this act, I shall be tried [in court] and condemned
[sentenced to death], and if I object to the sentence, that it is contrary to
[against] the law of God . . . the court of justice will demonstrate the
inconclusiveness of my reasoning [=that my reasoning did not make a
difference, did not convince the judge] - by hanging me up [=ordering me
to be executed by hanging], in pursuance of [=according to] the law of
which I have impugned [challenged] the validity.

92.

“Positivism”
“An exception, demurrer, or plea, [=various formal legal ways to
object or raise a defense in court] founded on the law of God was
never heard [=he might mean ”never said ,” or, “never accepted”] in a
Court of Justice, from the creation of the world down to the present
moment.”
John Austin, The Province of Jurisprudence Determined 185 (originally published 1832), quoted in,
H.L.A. Hart, “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, No.
4 (Feb. 1958), pp. 593-629 at 616-617.

93.

“Positivism”
What is the main idea of this passage?
What is Austin’s point?...

94.

“Positivism”
His point:
If you want to be realistic about what courts actually do,
you have to admit that
courts do not apply the natural law.

95.

“Positivism”
That is, Austin’s reason for saying, the natural law theory of law is--
чистейший вздор.
Do you agree with Austin?...

96.

“Positivism”
(As we will see, not everybody does.)

97.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
But before we get to that,
let’s go back to Hart,
who makes an important point about what Austin said.
This is Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory.

98.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
(from the reading I uploaded on Tuesday)
As we know, Hart says:
a law, to be valid,
does not have to be consistent with justice or morality.
In support of this point, Hart offers several arguments. Here are three:
[1] This is a realistic approach.
[2] Natural law theory does not improve our theoretical understanding of law.
[3] Natural law theory does not improve our moral reasoning or action.

99.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
[1] This is a realistic approach
Hart knows
that some systems of primary and secondary rules
(what he would call legal systems)
have been used by some people
to oppress others [= treat them harshly and unfairly].
[Examples: the “Slave Law” and the “Apartheid Law.”]

100.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
The oppressed people are,
in Hart’s word,
the “victims” of the system.

101.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
But if enough people
[other than the victims]
accept an oppressive system of primary and secondary rules,
even if, just through their obedience,
Hart considers that system to be a legal system.

102.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
[2] The natural law theory of law does not improve our
theoretical understanding of what law is.
To deny the status of law
to immoral rules
that meet Hart’s formal requirements of law,
would “leave the study of those rules
to disciplines other than law.”
[DH: maybe history, political science or sociology.]

103.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
But “no history or other form of legal study
has found it profitable [here, =useful] to do this.”
To do this would “split,
in a confusing way,”
the study of formally valid laws
that are consistent with morality,
and formally valid laws that are not.

104.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
Hart does not want to do this,
because
he believes that
“Study of [law’s] use involves study of its abuse.”

105.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
• Third, natural law theory does not improve our moral
reasoning or action.
Hart asks:
Is it better to say,
of an immoral law,
“This is not law,”
instead of…

106.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
• Third, natural law theory does not improve our moral
reasoning or action.
“This is law,
but too iniquitous
[= unfair and morally wrong]
to obey [thinking about the people]
or apply”[thinking about the law-workers]?

107.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
He answers:
what is most important
is that people remember
that the legal validity of a rule
does not answer the moral question
whether it should be obeyed (or applied).

108.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
Hart says:
the positivist view
that “morally iniquitous rules may still be law…

109.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
offers no disguise for
[=does not hide, does not allow us to avoid]
the choice between evils
which, in extreme [= very severe or serious] circumstances,
may have to be made.”

110.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
• Hart concludes:
Earlier positivist thinkers believed
that “both the theorist
and the unfortunate official or private citizen
who was called upon to apply or obey
[laws that were “morally iniquitous…

111.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
…but were enacted in proper form,
clear in meaning,
and satisfied all the acknowledged criteria of a system”]
could only be confused*
by an invitation
to refuse the title of ‘law’ or ‘valid’ to them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*Would they be confused?

112.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
“[Positivist thinkers] thought
that to confront [=face] these problems,
simpler, more candid [=honest and direct]
resources [here, = a source of help]
were available,

113.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
which would bring into focus [= make clearer] far better,
every intellectual and moral consideration:
we should say,
‘This is law;
but it is too iniquitous to be applied or obeyed.’

114.

Hart’s positivist answer to natural law theory
Question for thought:
What is the difference, if any, between saying:
“An immoral law is not a law
(and, therefore, I have no legal duty to obey it)”
And saying:
“This is an unjust law,
and I have no moral duty to obey it;
(and may even have a moral duty to disobey it).”…

115.

“…too iniquitous to obey.”
Some people have responded to a unjust law
that they believe is too iniquitous to obey,
with civil disobedience.

116.

“…too iniquitous to obey.”
What is civil disobedience?

117.

Civil disobedience
“…a public,
nonviolent,
conscientious
yet political act
contrary to law
usually done with the aim
of bringing about a change
in the law or policies of the government…

118.

Civil disobedience
“By acting in this way
one addresses the sense of justice
of the majority of the community
and declares that in one’s considered opinion
the principles of social cooperation
among free and equal men
are not being respected.”
--From John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971), §55

119.

Martin Luther King
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
Background
The Birmingham campaign to bring attention to the integration* efforts
of African Americans in the city of Birmingham, in the US state of
Alabama, began in April 1963, with marches and sit-in’s* against
racism and racial segregation.
=-=-=-=-=-=
*”integration” = opposition to forced separation of black and white people
“sit-in” = a form of protest in which people occupy a place, refusing
to leave until their demands are met.

120.

Martin Luther King,
From“Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
Background, continued
On April 10, a judge issued a court order against "parading, demonstrating,
boycotting, trespassing and picketing".
Leaders of the campaign announced they would disobey the ruling.
On April 12, Martin Luther King was arrested.
From “Birmingham campaign,” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Wikipedia

121.

Martin Luther King
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“…One may well ask:
"How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?”
The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws:
just and unjust.
I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws.
Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.
I would agree with St. [Saint] Augustine
that "an unjust law is no law at all."

122.

Martin Luther King
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“Now, what is the difference between the two?
How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?
A just law is a man made code
that squares [= is consistent] with the moral law or the law of God.
An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.

123.

Martin Luther King,
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas*:
An unjust law is a human law
that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.
Any law that uplifts** human personality is just.
Any law that degrades*** human personality is unjust.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* Catholic priest, theologian [=religious thinker] and philosopher, died 1274
** ”uplifts”= raises the level of; improves
*** “degrades = treats with disrespect

124.

Martin Luther King,
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“All segregation* statutes are unjust
because segregation
distorts* the soul
and damages the personality…
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
• “segregation”=separation of people by race
• “distorts”=bends out of shape

125.

Martin Luther King
From“Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“In no sense do I advocate
evading or defying the law…
That would lead to anarchy.

126.

Martin Luther King
From“Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
“One who breaks an unjust law
must do so openly, lovingly,
and with a willingness to accept the penalty.

127.

Martin Luther King
From “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963)
I submit that an individual who breaks a law
that conscience tells him is unjust,
and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment
in order to arouse* the conscience of the community over its injustice,
is in reality expressing the highest respect for law…”
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=*”arouse”= cause to wake up

128.

Short writing
Is the idea of natural law important today?
If so, in what ways is it important?
If not, why not?
• Give your opinion, but also cite the readings and discussions.

129.

END OF LESSON