DIGEST OF POSTULATES OF NATURAL LAW; Thomas Aquinas, Lon Fuller, and Finnis.pdf (original) (raw)

The question what is natural law provokes so many different answers as it has been recognized by many writers. It has had different meanings and has served entirely different purposes. Yet, there have been different theories on it and despite these different doctrines, it has for long been asserted that there are principles of natural law. Indeed, natural law thinking has occupied a pervasive role in the realms of ethics, politics and morality. Proponents of Natural Law generally posit that, the existence of law is based on a higher law dictated by reason. The essence of the Natural Law may be said to lie in the constant assertion that there are objective moral principles which depend upon the nature of the universe and which can be discovered by reason. Thus the Natural Law school generally posits that a law that is immoral is no law, therefore if a law is made and that law is not in accordance with the individual’s sense of morality, the individual should not obey the law. Thomas Aquinas for instance held the view that, if the king made an immoral law, the king himself by virtue of making that immoral law had become a rebel against the laws God, and therefore people had not only a right but also a duty to oppose that king. However, Finis argues that a legal system is there to further the common good. Therefore any disobedient act that tends to weaken the legal system as a whole may be unjustified. He thinks however, that sometimes a law may have to be obeyed, even if it seems immoral, because disobeying it might weaken the whole system. This digest shall include the theories of Thomas Aquinas, Lon Fuller and Finnis and the relevance or otherwise of Natural Law in contemporary legal studies.