To question, what decides Natural Law morality leave aside who should decide it. Better still, should morality be decided at all. If it is natural, then surely it just is, isn’t it? For many people, ‘natural law’ refers to the (so called) golden rule, ‘do unto others as you would they do unto you.’ This notion fails miserably as a moral ethic. (Should we burgle others as we would have them burgle us?) Others consider that natural law means ‘do not harm—cause no loss.’ Both these expressions are well meaning in broad terms, but are far too simplistic to offer substantive value or direction.
Does this imply that complexity is necessary? No, I submit. It suggests a code of ethics based on the nature of who and what we are, moreover, that the morality of our actions grows out of ethical consideration. It suggests natural law morality. This idea is wider in scope than blanket applied truisms or mantras.
Is morality individual or collective?
For starters, ‘who and what we are’ begs the question of whether individuals should be considered ahead of the collective, or vice versa? Are ethics and morality a matter for each of us, or a community concern? Most certainly, the answer to that question will determine who (or what) authors ethics and morality.
No prizes for guessing what most folks would answer today. Typically – ‘well of course morality is a collective concern. How could a moral society exist if we all chose our own?’
Let’s consider an alternate viewpoint. The phrase ‘moral society’ implies that all individuals desire that worthy goal. Likewise, immorality and immoral actions are considered most undesirable. Let’s look further. Who commits moral, or immoral actions? Is it individuals, or the collective entity known as ‘society?’ The answer is clear. Society cannot act as a singular unified entity. It is nothing but an aggregation of individuals. Accordingly, there is no such thing as a ‘moral society.’ But an aggregate of people who choose to act morally can exist.
Some might call this hair splitting. It’s not. Either society is free, or it is ruled. Individuals who choose to act morally, speak of freedom and one’s unalienable right to life. Conversely, moral edicts blanket imposed on all people speaks of authoritarian rule and denial of choice. Denial of free choice is immoral; contrary to our nature.
What is the role of ethics?
Does thought precede action? If so, what kind of thinking prompts moral actions? What kind inspires immoral actions? The answer is ethical or unethical thinking, respectively. So, who authors thought? Who authors ethics? Who authors morality? We each do, by choice.
If we can agree that we all have the right to make choices, then what influences our decisions? What is the bottom line that sorts morality from immorality? That’s easy—life itself. The good, the righteous, and the virtuous, upholds our lives. All contrary is contrary. It’s that simple. That is the foundation of ethics. After that, moral actions are the ‘acting out’ of ethical choices. That’s natural law morality most certainly.
How can we determine what upholds life; what is good, righteous, and virtuous? That’s easy—look within. Understand the nature of what we are. We’ve become so stupefied by rules, regulations, executive orders, and commandments, that few people ever consider laws within our nature. We’ve always looked to something outside; to the collective, family, church, culture, or government. The idea of exploring whom and what we are, versus what society is, offers a new perspective on ethics, best introduced by this question perhaps. ‘Why does Man unceasingly depend on (societies) written laws, when already, natural laws of life have been encrypted by Creator within every man, woman, and child?’
Time to adopt natural law morality
Isn’t it time to start over? Surely it’s time to discover and practice natural law morality. Are we what we are—our life force? Are we to take responsibility for it, or stupidly pass our ethical and moral judgements over to some dictator to force on others? To whom, or what, do we owe allegiance?
Some speak of claiming ‘self-ownership’ as their right to life. But how can anyone separately own what they already are? We, each are our life, are we not? If we do not morally choose to support it, what will? It is past time for Man to wake up—time to stop playing legal games with deadly outcomes. It is time for paying strict attention to life’s fullest needs, and blessings.It’s time to adopt natural law morality.
Only by respecting other folks right to life, will we ensure that right for ourselves. Grasp that concept wholly, and the absolute meaning of ‘do not harm—cause no loss’ has profound significance, personally and collectively. The moral foundation of the non-aggression principle (NAP) will be shown immutable.
‘Law From Within’ Man explores natural law morality and much more. Returning now to simplicity, which is preferable? Overly simple mantra’s, twenty natural laws, or 80,000,000 laws scattered in libraries worldwide?
No statute of Man speaks to the beautiful, unique, individual living being that you are.
Natural law does nothing less.
Back to Blog Index