The concept of “Law of Nature” has been the subject of contention and controversy among the jurists, philosophers and political thinkers from very ancient times. It will be useful, therefore, to trace briefly its evolution and meanings.
Its Origin and Evolution
(Greek period; To the primitive peoples, all law was divine law. But in ancient Greece, for the first time in human history, it was thought that there were two kinds of laws, the laws of nature and the man-made laws, called conventions. Nature remains the same; it has uniformity. The uniformity of external nature is the law of Nature. Human conventions, customs, and institutions vary from time to time and country to country. But amidst all the variations and diversity of human laws and institutions, there are certain elements which are common and uniform. They are the natural laws. They are fundamental and basic features in human life. They embody natural justice, as distinguished from legal justice. This distinction was made by Plato and Aristotle. Other Greek philosophers, e.g. the Stoics, interpreted natural law as the universal law of reason. According to them, every man is endowed by nature with reason, which can help him in discovering the natural law or rule of reason. Reason would enable him to distinguish right from wrong and to live the natural life of simplicity. When Greece was conquered by Rome, the Stoic philosophy influenced the Roman lawyers and jurists, and thus the idea of the Law of Nature passed into the Roman Law and jurisprudence.
Roman period
When Rome became a vast empire, thousands of foreigners, the peregrini as they were called, came to Rome for trade and commerce. The Roman judges decided their disputes according to the Law of Nations, called jus Gentium. When the Stoic idea of the Law of Nature was introduced in the Roman Law: the Jus Gentium was declared to be based on the Law of Nature. So Jus Gentium and Jus Naturale were considered to be one and the same, because they were based on natural reason found in all the nations of the world. This idea was expressed in the Code of Justinian in these words: “All nations are governed partly by their own particular laws, called the Civil Law, and partly by those laws which are common to all mankind which natural reason appoints for all mankind and is called the Law of Nations, because all nations use it”. The Jus Naturole was based on good faith, common-sense, normal family relations and affections, normal commercial relations, etc. In short, it is a principle ol fair dealing among men.
Middle Ages
In the Middle Ages in Europe, the Law of Nature was interpreted by the Christian churchmen and scholars as the Law of Gal representing divine justice. But it was also considered to be a moral principle of reason which distinguished between good and evil and taught men to do well and avoid evil.
The Social Contract Theory. The heyday of the Natural Law was during the early modern period, from 16th to 18th century. Natural law and natural rights became the central themes of the social contract theorists, like that of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. They asserted that in the ‘State of nature’ men were governed by the Law of Nature and possessed natural rights. Rousseau made it an ideal of equality and liberty which could be achieved by men if they overthrow the unequal and unjust social customs and artificial manners of civilisation. His cry was “back to nature” and its simplicity.
Its various meanings and principles
The Law of Nature is understood in various meanings: (i) it is regarded as a principle of uniformity in nature; (ii) the rule of reason; (iii) the Law of God; (iv) an ideal law, as contrasted with the imperfect human laws. It is a law as it ought to be, with which the particular laws ought to conform as much as possible; (v) it is a moral law, based on justice and reason, which necessarily teaches what is the right; (vi) it is an eternal law, as contrasted to the ever-changing particular laws of society or State, and existed in the State of nature. It is art unwritten, eternal law, rooted in human nature, and is therefore “superior in obligation to any other law” made by human law givers.
From these meanings were derived several principles of Natural Law; viz., (i) that justice is part of human nature and is not based on human desire; (ii) being a law of reason, nothing unreasonable or arbitrary could be just; (iii) it is universal and not particular or local in time or place; and (iv) that men are by nature equal and free. Such were the conclusions drawn from the conception of the Law of Nature by the jurists, the social contrai l theorists and the philosophers for more than two thousand years. They inspired many theories and philosophies of law, society and State e.g., the social contract theory, idealism, etc.
Its Merits
In spite of these defects and dangers, the concept of the- Law of Nature has some merits. It is a protest against the rigidity of existing laws. It offers an ideal of justice and reason. As Kant says, it is a standard of justice. It proclaims that there are certain principles of human society and State which are eternally valid and necessary. They cannot therefore be disregarded by the powers that be. For physical sciences, this concept has great merit. It refers to the sequence of cause and effect in natural phenomena from which are derived all the physical laws. There is uniformity in Nature, provided Nature, is understood in the sense of a datum or a fact of external objectivity. Lastly, this concept has influenced the growth of political, philosophical and juristic thought and institution in the past. But, in conclusion, we reject the idea of Law of Nature because it has no existence. It is misleading, false and meaningless. It creates more problems than it solves Criticism.
The concept of the Law of Nature is now rejected on several grounds. Firstly, it is historically untrue. It never existed in any age of human history. It has really been a figment of the imagination of philosophers and jurists. It never guided the conduct of human beings in any age. Secondly, the analytical jurists reject it because it has no sanction or force behind it. It was never been enforced by a sovereign. Thirdly, it is a mere ideal of morality and justice, it only tells us what a law ought to be, but not what it actually is. As political law deals with external actions and not with inner thoughts, the Law of Nature cannot guide legislation. Fourthly, it is a dangerous idea. Human nature is inherently imperfect and therefore its social institutions and political laws will also be imperfect. But the idea of Natural law as something ideally perfect, makes the people to disobey the actual laws of the State. Thus it undermines the respect for law and for political authority. It engenders a spirit of revolt and a readiness to break the existing laws and overthrow existing authority. This was what actually happened under the influence of the teachings of Rousseau and led to the French Revolution of 1789. Hence, the Law of Nature is considered as a mere fiction, an exploded myth.