Thomas Jefferson wrote:"Laws of Nature" into
the Declaration of independence, he was referring to an Enlightenment
concept deeply rooted in Western philosophy. In later writings,
has written her moral laws on the head and heart of every rational
and honest man, where man may read them for himself. If ever you
are about to say anything amiss, or to do anything wrong, consider
beforehand you will feel something within you which will tell
you it is wrong, and ought not to be said or done. This is your
conscience, and be sure and obey it... Conscience is the only
sure clue which will eternally guide a man clear of all his doubts
The Greek philosopher, Aristotle,
suggested that human virtue is not imposed from without, but blossoms
from within. People feel a natural inclination to ideas of fairness,
human rights and equality. We know in our hearts what is right and
wrong. This struck a philosophical chord that has resonated ever
since, and resulted in an awareness of what was later called natural
laws, or Nature's Law.
Know upfront that is not a compilation
of rules or regulations, or commandments carved in stone. Nor does
it refer to the general concept of scientific laws.
What philosophy refers to as Nature's
Law is the convergence and conclusions of human conscience and
rationality, an inner reference that recognizes the intrinsic dignity
of human rights and values that are then rationally perceived.
It is not a single person's possession, but shared among us all
at the deepest level. It is our sense of justice, fairness and compassion
by which all subsequent laws should be judged. One can think of
it as the intuitive precursor and stimulus for human law.
Locke, the philosopher who most influenced Jefferson, went to
far as to believe that acting dishonorably meant acting against
nature. The moral equality of human beings, he said, is based on
their common nature (translated by Jefferson into "all men
are created equal"). Natural law is what steers people toward
the common good, rather than getting mired in self-interest. Personal
ethics are recognized duties we have toward one another by virtue
of our being human. We are social creatures, and that requires concern
for others. The following quote by Locke illustrates how deeply
he believed this:
away wrongful from another and for one man to advance his own
interest by the disadvantage of another man is more contrary to
nature than death, than poverty, than pain, than any other evil.
While the ancients
saw natural law as obligation, Enlightenment thinkers saw it from
the recipient's point-of-view by calling these obligations human
rights. Instead of seeing right action as a magnanimous
virtue on the way to self-perfection, they saw it as universal rights
that people should not be treated poorly or with bias. These approaches,
subtly different, lead to similar results. From our perspective,
they are best embraced together. People have certain rights, and
we have a duty to respect them.
Is this just a quaint philosophical
idea no longer relevant in our age of science? Or does Nature's
Law point to something of intrinsic value for us now, when our understanding
of the natural world far exceeds anything Enlightenment philosophers
Unlike most of us today, who have
so many resources available to us, earlier generations had to look
for truth in themselves and the world around them, with the bold
confidence that truth could be directly found and related to.
Today, we have almost unlimited
supplies of knowledge at our finger tips. But something is missing.
With the availability of legions of experts on every subject, much
of the personal urge to discover, which is part of our nature, has
been left to stagnate. We expect answers to be ready-made and quickly
available, so we can pick and choose what we want. This attitude
denotes subtle changes to our encounter with the world. It makes
us dependent more on others than on ourselves to an intellectual
extreme. Our present dynamic for learning things is that of being
perpetual students at the feet of supposed masters, who may or may
not be correct. Our fundamental need for soul-searching discovery
Jefferson and his peers saw the
acquisition of knowledge as a perpetual quest filled with wonder
and excitement that reflected human nobility.
In contrast, we are the recipients
of conclusions already formulated by others. Our challenge is reduced
to choosing among prefabricated options, remembering what we are
taught, and fitting in with a quiescent status quo. Pervasive social
values, which have somewhat strayed from Nature's Law, encourage
us to apply knowledge for personal pleasure or profit, and not as
responsible citizens of the world. These are two very different
versions of life's meaning. One is purposeful, exciting and progressive;
the other dependent, unimaginative, and obsessed by self-interest.
Unless we choose one over the other, we inherit what we will by
For today's skeptical minds, we
need to know if Nature's Law is something real, something that even
strict evolutionary science can validate. I think it is.
Despite cultural differences, human
morality and social law are, in various forms, found in all human
societies. Logic suggests that such universality could only be explained
by the common denominator of human beings themselves. When certain
mammalian instincts and rational thought converge, values and meanings
gradually develop over time. As rational thought continues to be
applied, moral tendencies become clearer, and conscience earns its
due. Written laws are, or should be, expressions of this process.
While this is a universal human
phenomenon, it can, and often is, interfered with. The entire process
can be impeded if people are detoured at an early age, as we see
The utility of Nature's Law is
not given to us whole cloth at birth, but just as a potential that
hopefully gains ascendency as we mature. It places us in relationship
with the mystery of life and existence itself. It grows as we grow,
and as our ability to reason becomes more refined. Properly encouraged,
it flourishes. Neglected, it shrivels to suppressed feelings of
discontent. Just as a seed needs water to produce a mature plant,
so too the mind needs deep, independent inquiry and reflection for
its full potential to bloom. The mind with undeveloped conscience
has been diverted from its own natural growth. Too many ready-made
answers, too much peer pressure or social expectation, too few personal
expectations and inspirational opportunities, result in this lossas
does a lack of love.
Which brings us to very real and
important consequences. Our view of ethics depends on our
view of human nature, and its subsequent view of reality.
However we define our ethics, defines us as well. We cannot leave
them to chance or expediency.
What about religion?
From what has been said so far, Nature's
Law might be construed as purely a secular or philosophical idea,
in that it fails to reference God. Is it in any way compatible with
answer is yes. Seven out of the Ten Commandments, those referring
to social morality, reflect the essence of natural law, as does
the Golden Rule of loving one's neighbor as oneself. Confirming
this connection more specifically, St. Paul wrote in his
letter to the Romans:
who do not have the law do by nature what the law requires, they
are a law unto themselves, even though they do not have the law.
They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts,
while their conscience also bears witness
provides an important concept to Chivalry-Now. It affirms
a process through which we find and relate to virtue that starts
within ourselves. This relationship is vital to who we are, leading
to a fulfilling life. It encourages us to seek truth for ourselves,
and tap into the dictates of conscience, even when society points
in another direction. It also provides a certain level of autonomy
conducive with the experience of freedom that we refer to as the