What I would like to do in this blog is examine Natural law theory through the eyes of Social Darwinism. First it is necessary to define Social Darwinism:
"The term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution byIn other words, natural selection, or survival of the fittest, can be applied in a social context. So what does the evolution of society and its inhabitants have to do with natural law? The answer lies in the evolution of morality.
natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or
country"
Before I get into that, I need to take a stand on my personal perception of morality. I would argue against Aquinas' view that morality is divine by pointing out the multitude of religions today and looking at their differences. Sure, some basic tenants are all the same (ex. dont kill people). However, theres clearly differences in some important moral issues. The treatment of women is a well known one.
So if I believe morality isnt derived from the divine, what could a heathen like myself possibly belive? I would side with the belief that morality is the child of perceptions. That as we grow and experience life we develop our moral character. For instance, why do children need parents to correct them and show them right from wrong? Why do political and cultural beliefs differ from state to state or country to country? I hold these examples as proof that morality is the biproduct of our development.
So how does this all connect? Well, if Social Darwinism holds that society evolves due to natural selection, and society is the basis of morality. Then clearly, the evolution of society means the evolution of natural law! More simply put, if morals change over time then so does natural law. Look at some major moral issues throughout history. The gradual abolishment of slavery, the reduction of isolationist foreign policies, the shift from monarchical systems to democracy. All of these things can be associated with various moral beliefs.
If you look even closer in our own society you can see the gradual change of morality reflected in the law. Look at the progression of the constitution. Each new amendment points to another chapter of our countries history where an important change happened. More simply put, natural law theory holds that morality is the bases of positive law. Since morality changes and evolves, so does positive law throughout time.
So where does Nietzsche come in? Nietzsche represents my one fear of interpreting law through a moral eyeglass. Nietzsche creates a bipolar moral system in his works. Basically, the superior humans only need to obey the master morality because they have the power to dominate others. The inferior humans obey slave morality. Nietzsche claims to dislike Darwin but he “corrects” him by saying that natural selection in humans is not defined by survival but by power. To sum this up, viewing law through a moral standard depends completely on what your moral standard is. Every person, town, or nation views its moral standards as the best. When you think about this in a general sense, this fact makes Natural law theory seem a volatile alternative to legal interpretation.
So where does Nietzsche come in? Nietzsche represents my one fear of interpreting law through a moral eyeglass. Nietzsche creates a bipolar moral system in his works. Basically, the superior humans only need to obey the master morality because they have the power to dominate others. The inferior humans obey slave morality. Nietzsche claims to dislike Darwin but he “corrects” him by saying that natural selection in humans is not defined by survival but by power. To sum this up, viewing law through a moral standard depends completely on what your moral standard is. Every person, town, or nation views its moral standards as the best. When you think about this in a general sense, this fact makes Natural law theory seem a volatile alternative to legal interpretation.
I strongly agree with Tyler's comments on the idea that natural law is constantly changing with time as society's morals and beliefs continue to change, as well as the idea that morality is the biproduct of our development. Clearly it is extremely difficult to make any sort of amendment to the US Constitution with only 17 amendments being made since 1791. However, these amendments, particularly the terms spelled out in the 13th, 14th 18th, 19th and 21st were undoubtedly a necessity due to the changing times and beliefs of the citizens of United States. In addition to these highly significant amendments, dozens of US Supreme Court cases have been overruled in the past century that have displayed our changing morals and in turn the changing of positive law as well.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't natural law theory be irrelevant in this matter; considering that natural law theory tends to place an external concept above positive law, and that positive law revolves around this external concept. If morality is simply an internal concept, an idea or thing composed within a society, what merit does it have as something to hold law to? At least in terms of a natural law. It seems as if, unless I misunderstood you, that if morality has an origin amongst humanity then it's use as a concept to hold law to would be a human concept or moral as well? What prevents humanity from abolishing the idea that law should be held accountable to a set of moral standards, or that morality is even necessary in daily conduct? If Darwin is correct in his theory of evolution and natural selection, what's next in relationship to man, and how will that affect morality's role in law or even amongst humanity?
ReplyDeleteI think the question of whats next in the chain is interesting. However, I think youre misinterpreting my intention with this Ryan. If I were applying the concepts of natural law to social darwinism, then this would be irrelevant. Instead, im using social darwinism to reinterpret natural law.
ReplyDeleteBack to the point though, I would agree with you that due to moralitys human origins it is not the best choice to use as a basis of law. My point wasnt whether it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing. I merely pointed out that through the eyes of a natural law theorist one could draw paralells between social darwinism, morality, and the evolution of our legal system.
I agree with the notion that morality is the way in which natural law has evolved. However I would have to say that our laws today are a combination of both natural selection and power. I may be misinterpreting the two theories, but I am led to believe that natural selection can be a part of the power that Nietzsche speaks of because the strongest moral codes survive being that they are the most powerful.
ReplyDeleteHowever I believe that power may influence the perceptions of law held by those with the greatest amount, which in turn leads to bias. Nietzsche once said “the duller the eye, the more extensive the good” and this exemplifies how power can be its own moral code. The more power one has the more their ideals are subjected to impurities or an idea of what right and wrong is.
I like Ryan’s point that if morality is composed within the society, it isn’t a credible standard to hold law to. I feel that the concept of morality is divine, or at least something that is beyond what society views as wrong or right at a particular point of time. There have to be some standards for treating woman which allow for them to live naturally suitable lives, though these may be upheld differently in various cultures. Just because our moral stance of slavery has changed, doesn’t mean that it ever the morally right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the law is always changing and evolving as society is changing and evolving. The laws have to change because our viewpoints are changing. I agree with Benita when she talks about how Nietzsche said that the strongest moral codes survive because they are the most powerful. The more powerful a person is the more say they have in a matter and they are also more likely to be listened to. No matter how much our law evolves and changes I think that that factor will be the same.
ReplyDelete