I was posed with a question the other night that left me pondering on the philosophy of Natural Law. In order for any philosophical theory to be credible, it must be able to be applied across every platform that you apply it to. The questions was (paraphrased), How can Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness be Natural when they are only exercisable by humans? In all honesty, it stumped me. The first rule of research is to start at the source and work outward, so I started at the source of Natural Law - Nature. When looking at Nature in its most-basic form, the Law of the Jungle is apparent. So I asked myself, What is the Law of the Jungle? The answer is Anarchy. Darwinism, Anarchy, the Law of the Jungle, and Natural Law are all one-in-the-same in their most basic forms. According to the Law of Nature, animals exercise their Right to Life without regard for the Right to Life of another animal in order to preserve their own life, resulting in their ability to act freely and enjoy their non-survival situations (as much as an animal can enjoy something). Mankind is no different in their natural state. Take away critical thinking and intellectualism, and you get a barbaric animal that walks upright. Humans have no more of a Right to Life, Liberty, or pursuit of Happiness than any other living creature in the wild, because all living things are endowed with those Rights by the Creator. So what makes humans more-entitled to these Rights than any other animate object? Intelligence. When mankind came to be, they inherited the Earth. Humans have been able to conquer every frontier Nature has. Thats what makes Man possess the ability to call the Earth theirs - conquest. Darwinism states, that which is strongest will survive, and thats what weve done. Our Forefathers were able to come together in 1776 to realize (intentionally or not) that the Law of Nature is the only Law that may indefinitely prevail when artificial institutions (government, religion, community) fail. Being the intellectuals and Enlightenment thinkers that the Founder of the united States of America were, they embraced Natural Law/Anarchy/Darwinism in their new nation under the Republican Form of Government where individuals could do as they wished on their private property (the dominant beasts domain). But they added a provision to this - Law and Order. They established that the Rights of others are not to be violated in order to extinguish the violent and unjust Law of the Jungle and institute the premise that one may only dominate over the lands that one possesses; that one may choose totalitarian control or absolute anarchy over the property which they privately own; that when one steps beyond their jurisdiction and violates the Natural Rights of another, those trampled Rights deserve retribution to restore Order via Law. But one must recognize that these Rights exists (as they are self-evident) in order to exercise them and have them protected, for government will not secure the Rights of an individual without request for them to be secured. So if it is Anarchy over your property that you want - no retribution for a violation of your Natural Rights - you have it. Since animals cannot ask for their Rights to be secured, they are able to be conquered without punishment. So my answer to the question posed at the beginning of this piece is that Natural Rights are not exclusive to humans, for they are natural, and all that is natural has these Rights as they are able to exercise Natural Law. It is the fact that humans have the mental capacity to seek retribution for a violation of these Rights by recognizing them that creates the illusion that mankind is the only beings that exist with these Rights.
Posted on: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:42:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015