Traditional Natural Law and Religion

My first reaction to the concept of morality in the law was one of apprehensive acceptance. As many have noted, morality today is widely recognized as a subjective issue. However, I do believe that the use of religious morality as a foundation for laws in the past has certainly been beneficial. Whether or not these same “morals” could have been derived from human reason as easily as divine natural law, we will never know, but their contribution has certainly yielded positive results. Despite my reluctant recognition of religion providing a sufficient framework for current law, I also look to the work of John Stuart Mill as a desirable combination of morality in the law according to religion and a lack of strict adherence to such questionable practices. In On Liberty, Mill discusses the concept of individual sovereignty and the human right to do as he pleases so long as it does not affect others. This principle allows for the moral considerations provided by religious texts, such as the prohibition on murder, while still maintaining the availability of personal choices. The important distinction here is that there is no threatening religious justification to the law as occurs in traditional natural law. “Do not kill because God says so” is far less convincing to me than “do not kill because it encroaches on the rights of others in a way that you would deem unacceptable if done to you.” Religious people may or may not desire to follow such a law because it is God’s will, but everyone can identify with human reasoning (I hope). Therefore, my issue with traditional natural law is that it uses religious texts as a sufficient condition to create positive law, while it should only be a consideration at best.