|
It is clear that a good portion of the people, plus a good portion of the judges in the judiciary, plus a good portion of those in the legislative, don't consider law to be natural. Let's say there really was something like "natural law." The moment that a good portion of humanity disagrees with what is natural, wouldn't that make the whole concept of natural law irrelevant (if not outright false)?
I mean, we know historically that all those rights considered part of "natural law" are actually quite recent, and the result of quite recent events. But even setting that aside, the moment we recognize that even us, here, have different views of the same things, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that certain things are not self evident? Or do we really believe that anyone who publicly disagrees with the notion of natural law actually knows, intimately, that natural law is right, but just choose to go against it for nefarious reasons?
The whole idea of natural law emerged as a rhetorical device to counter the notions of divine law and divine rights of kings.
|