DOES IT EVEN EXIST?

                             Image: Representation of Karma by Horacio Cardozo

From our introduction to Natural Law, one thing is clear: natural law is somewhat ephemeral, in fact, it is referred to as the ‘unwritten law’. I personally think that it being an abstract idea is necessary if it is to be universal and eternal, as any definition or representation of it has to forcibly be circumstantial and therefore constrained to a set of time and space and linked to the customs and traditions of a specific place and people. From Cicero to the writing of this blog, all we have (and in my opinion, all we will ever have no matter how much effort we put into it) are representations of truth. This is the idea of Plato’s ideal forms, all we have here are mere copies of those eternal and divine forms of truth or justice. But we are the interpreters of them, we are not mere spectators or outsiders in nature, we are that divine element of it too. Therefore, positive laws or the written laws (common law, civil law, cannon law, maritime law, contract law) are just man-made systems which fulfil this task, re-presenting the real thing that is and just is; because it is eternal and therefore always present and so all we can do is try to represent it.

But, if it is ephemeral and representations are all we have got, how do we know that Natural Law even exists? The philosopher Yves René Simon (1965), in his book The Tradition of Natural Law: A Philosopher's Reflections makes an interesting point regarding this question (pp.112-13). He proposes that just the simple question of whether a positive law is just or not implies a recognition of a superior principle governing those laws, as if the highest order of laws is solely relative to and dependent on the times and customs of that particular place and people, the positive or written laws of that particular community will have to be dettached from any higher order or conception of 'justice'. History, in this sense, appears to point towards the unequivocal existence of Natural Law. 

However, if by now you are still not convinced of the idea that there are constrains above men that are out of reach of human manipulation but at the same time within reach of man’s perception; let me ask you two questions:

1. Do you think you have an inner sense of right and wrong?

2. Do you think that ‘one reaps what one sows’ or that ‘what comes around goes around’?

If you replied ‘yes’ to both then, welcome to the Natural Law world. If you replied ‘no’ to either or both then, just keep reading. The first question is directed at the individual manifestation produced by Natural Law in the microcosmos. The second is the collective manifestation of it, the ‘karma’ idea if you like. Natural Law binds us all, from the king to the jurist to the peasant. Natural law binds us within and without, that is why it is important to remain in honour and know how to manage yourself in the fictional realm of life... some like to think that what you do inside will manifest in your outer reality and likewise.

The next option would have been that you replied ‘no’ to the first question and ‘yes’ to the second. This is covered in a lot more detail in the ‘Moral Relativism’ article, suffice to say that if there is an illness of the psyche called ‘psychopathology’ is precisely because to be deprived of that innate sense of right and wrong constitutes a pathology of the psyche (mind or/and soul).

If, however, you are one of the few cynical pragmatists who deny any sort of ‘magic’ in our reality, and thus have replied ‘no’ to the second, my recommendation will be to check the psychologist Jordan Peterson's take on Natural Law. He says: no one ever gets away with it! 

Can we be completely sure of Natural Law’s existence? It is up to each one of us to find it or not.