The Law of Nature and the Law of Reason

There is a single principle underlying everything which we consider morally good. It was expressed in its most simple form by Jesus Christ, when he said “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” It is the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is the principle of Reciprocality, which forms the basis of the Law of Nature or Law of Reason of Locke and other political philosophers. It is perhaps given its most complete and rigorous exposition by Kant, who calls it the Categorical Imperative.

In every form in which it appears, this principle is a recognition that our freedom of action must be voluntarily restrained to those actions which are morally good. And that the limits we place on our actions are the same for everyone, and defined by what would be acceptable for everyone. If you would not want someone to do something to you, you should not do that thing to someone else. Every good law must be able to be applied reciprocally to both or all parties. This is the minimum standard for any rule of action to be considered morally good. Any rule or action which does not stand up to this principle is unmistakably evil.

If a one-word expression of this principle is desired, I like the term “reciprocality”, because it embodies the idea that every good rule must be applied both ways, to you, and to me. Christ's formulation in his second great commandment, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” is a beautiful and simple to understand expression of the principle.

Yet there are some people who enjoy trying to poke philosophical holes in the Golden Rule, such as, if someone is mentally ill, and likes to be hurt (a sadomasochist), are they justified in hurting others. Those who enjoy that sort of philosophical exercise may be referred to the works of Immanuel Kant (specifically the “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals” and its sequel, the “Critique of Practical Reason”), in which he gives the principle a rigorous philosophical definition by replacing reciprocality (you and me) with universality (everyone). Kant has a great talent for precision of thought, but displays a striking inability to come up with catchy labels or titles, so reading his works can be as challenging as they are rewarding. He call the principle the “categorical imperative”, and defines it as “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” When the principle behind our action must be applied universally, the Golden Rule principle can withstand all the philosopher's attempts at hole-poking. Kant also goes on to form an equivalent definition, where he says that every person must always be treated as an end in themselves, and not as a means to some other end.

Many political philosophers, such as Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, etc., have written about “Natural Laws” or “Laws of Nature”, all of which are based on the principle of reciprocally and arrived at by logical reasoning from that principle. It is the duty of all creatures who possess the faculty of reason to obey this principle, and they create laws to codify their methods of obedience.

“Universal law is the law of Nature.” (Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chapter 13)

“The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II, q. 91)

“A Law of Nature, (Lex Naturalis,) is a Precept, or general Rule, found out by Reason, … the first, and Fundamental Law of Nature; which is, 'To seek Peace, and follow it.'” (Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 14)

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” (Locke, Second Treatise on Government, chapter 2, section 6)

But if we observe nature itself, we see that it does not actually follow the principle of reciprocality. Plants and animals prey on one another and only the fittest and strongest survive for long. In nature, survival is a constant struggle, the strong dominate or eat the weak, and none stop to consider whether their actions are fair to the victims. Humans are also tempted to live according to this fashion, especially if they are strong and able to dominate others. They believe their strength and superior ability gives them the right to make rules for others, even if they do not follow the same rules. The principle they follow may be succinctly expressed as “might makes right.” It is the same principle we see in nature and express as “survival of the fittest.”

The principle that nature follows is not the same as the “Natural Law” of the political philosophers. But is still a law that nature follows. If “might makes right” is the principle behind your rules and actions, it leads to one sort of moral system, of bad morals, but which follows that patterns we observe in natures. And if “reciprocality” or the Golden Rule is the principle for your rules and actions, it leads to another sort of moral system, one of good morals, which seem “natural” when you or the political philosophers think about them. This moral system really requires some thought and reasoning, which the animals in nature have very little capacity for, so I personally think the “Law of Reason” would be a better term for what the political philosophers call the “Law of Nature” (and they even use that term on rare occasions).

Nevertheless, there are two moral systems which may be called Laws of Nature. One is based on fear and force and “might makes right”. This leads to injustice and even evil behavior. The other is based on duty and reason, and leads to fairness and morally good behavior. Our actions and our laws can be analyzed, and we will see that they are practically always based in one of these two moral systems.

Is there a different standard of action for the rulers, than for the subjects? That is “might makes right”, and is evil. Do we call it “targeted killings” when we do it, and “assassination” when they do it? That is not reciprocal, and is evil. Do we respects other's rights to do as they please with their property or within their borders? We expect the same consideration, so it is good. Do we defend our property and rights by force only when and not until others first violate them? That is necessary and good. Or do we force preemptively based on suspicions, and a “national interest” in other people's property? That is evil.

As a parting thought, consider that if there are two moral systems based on different principles, it is possible there is a third, based on yet another principle. When Christ gave the sermon on the mount, he preached of a higher law. Not merely and eye for an eye, which is just, but do good to them that hurt you. Not merely to preform your oaths, which is a fair contract, but let your simple word, yea or nay, be your honor. Not merely to refrain from immoral actions, but to refrain from immoral thoughts. The first great commandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” is the basis for this higher law. Moral uprightness and goodness may be achieved by duty and reason, but there is an even higher righteousness to be reached when we are motivated by love and charity.