Book Review: Hill′s After the Natural Law
John Hill is a professor in law and was introduced to the catholic church in the year 2009.
His book builds a marvelous introduction to natural law, and he normally suggests ethics with a lack of recourse to natural law will definitely lead or cause chaos. He urges that natural is the idea that creates the moral framework and from which we are able and capable of drawing practical conclusions for the purpose of living a better and good life. This implies that truth should be built in every fabric of the world, and this has to be designed for a specific purpose. The book by John Hill traces the development of philosophy from the classical way of life to modern times. In his book, Hill urges that the most cherished political and moral values, that is, freedom, moral truth, responsibility as well human dignity make sense only under the classical understanding of the universe. This paper will, therefore, provide a review of Hills book with the inclusion of great philosophers like Plato, Socrates, Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, among others.
Hill, in his book, considers Aquinas as the greatest philosopher of natural law. Aquinas perceived natural law to be something build inside us. That is, people have the moral template so as to form their conscience something he called synderesis. Aquinas believed that natural inclinations are supposed to be good, and these inclinations are what make people be happy. Even before the time of Aquinas, natural law was there. Hill cites greater philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato as the philosophers who contributed greatly towards the development of natural law. In addition, the author asserts that it is the work of Christians or the religion that fashioned natural law to have become a workable system. Hill goes a step ahead and examines some of the major critics of natural law. He asks why people behave differently when natural law is in place. Later on, he concludes that humans have free will, and they can easily depart or deviate from natural law.
According to the book, natural law implies something that comes naturally to people. It can be considered something natural if a woman becomes pregnant out of rape and considers to abort. The term natural, Hill considers it to be something which normally misunderstood. He urges that nature in the essence of natural law is something that fulfills humans. That is, humans are capable of struggling against their desires so as to be fulfilled. Hill concludes that natural law is something that humans are ought to do and not what others will expect others to do.
For Aquinas, the universe is made of form and matter. The essence here is that is what humans are, and from such humans are capable of working on how they should live a better or good life. This can only be done through a clear understanding of the term essence. That is, the same specifies and have a common nature. Hill indicates that great philosophers like Locke regarded natural law as an imposed thing from the outside of the Almighty. The book suggests that Locke did not see the in-built capacity in humans to be built their conscience. Also, Hobbes’s arguments are in favor of human nature. However, Hobbes regarded human nature as something that is disastrous. That is, humans are selfish in nature, and this pessimistic perception of human nature can be considered to be a direct revolt from the protestant.
The author suggests that after a clear understanding of the above situation, science assumes the term “is,” and morality assumes the term “ought,” and the two terms drift away from each other. This, however, leads to the notion that there are no things that are subjected to objectives of morality. During the eighteen century, the alternative of natural law was proposed, utilitarianism and deontology. Utilitarianism suggests the best course to be one that leads humans to achieve their greatest happiness, and for deontologists, ethics forms a system of rights and duties. Both alternatives reject the objectiveness of moral order.
Relationship between democracy, conventional Statesmanship, and positive law
The concept of natural law form s a center of thought about politics, morality, and politics in western traditions. However, natural law is not tied to single or one theoretical account or basis of natural law, and it forms the principal architects as well as the greatest spokesmen of that time starting from Thomas, Locke, Aquinas, Aristotle to Luther and Lincoln who believed that humans create positive laws based on what is good morals, just-bad or unjust thins depending on the conformity of natural law. This implies that the law is not just a mere creation.
Natural law, therefore, is the greatest or the highest law and is normally in the principle of accessibility for humans to reason and also does not depend on divine relations. For instance, saint Paul wrote laws are written in the heart of a person and forms the conscience through which events happen for those who do not violate the written laws. Other philosophers also appeal to nature and God’s nature in their justification of democracy. Many commentators have the believe that the democracy is founded under firm believers of natural and its sought to create a democracy that conforms to all the requirements as they could acknowledge them and also forms basic principle that designs a just democracy.
Through natural law, democracy is formed through procedures and institutions that protect and respect basic rights humans, that people have and rights that are not considered to privileged opportunities or rights granted by governments. Democracy is therefore the basic principle of natural law which becomes the moral responsibility or the duty of the state to protect and respect human rights.
The concept of Statesmanship under natural law is not just subjective. Statesmanship concept lies on what is wrong and right and should be same for every individual in state or a nation. Natural law solves ethical dilemmas such that every person is accorded the right to live. Then Statesmanship and natural law set the line between unjust life and life that considered to be just. Natural law theory therefore, recognizes and acknowledges moral and legal concepts of how a society should live and is always used to justify actions or deeds that can lead to violation of rights. Statesmanship and natural law are not a simple concept. What comprises what is right and wrong normally the same for every individual, and it becomes difficult for the application of Statesmanship and natural law.
The concept that brings the relationship between natural and positive law is essential for us in order to understand the basis nature, legitimacy sources as well as functions of law. For instance, if stock value becomes high, there will be a debate about authority, legitimacy and also the rationality associated with global justice. Then the dual appeals to international laws and natural justice will definitely return to the basis of natural and positive law. Natural law does not appeal to the nature and authority of Almighty, divine rules, nature and universal ethics. Thus, it should reflect or appeal to the democratic authority of self-determination.
Review of the book
Natural can be viewed using different perceptions not just as personal preference nor a mere theory among other various other competition perceptions or views. Natural is there and is what lead or makes the truth to be known and its understood through both the perception of corresponding effects and intellect. Natural law teaches about the presence of order in the world and that humans have to follow some standards for the purpose of upholding just in live. The first articulator of natural law Aquinas asserts that a perfect natural law seeks what is right and avoids what is bad and wrong. This implies that naturally rejects the ideas that evil and good are constructs existing as a result of the will of power or self-interest. Humans have the capability to understand as well as to comprehend principles of what is evil and what Is bad through reasoning.
During twenty-first century, was an age that was marked by skepticism, relativism, materialism, nihilism as well as dysfunctional ideologies that led sheer wiliness to do evil when been aware, it is therefore common for natural in such cases to be ridiculed, denied, dismissed and also neglected. However, the rejection and dismissal of natural law has high prices and also lack of meaning as well as reason. Once humans deny, dismiss and reject the presence of natural law as well as the presence of natural rights, the universe will definitely become unintelligible. Hence humans will be driven the idea of materialism and also believe in various ideas beneath the level of human dignity.
“After the Natural Law,” by Hills is a time and well-organized book. This is because Hills understand the concept of natural law as pivot to coherent and health society. the book is arranged or divided into two distinctive parts or section. The first section deals with philosophical history. The author begins his book be introducing Greek great philosophers and goes ahead to show how the concept of natural law originated and how the idea of natural law is found in Aristotelian and Platonic teleology which in return challenge the ideas of materialism. The author then proceeds on to discuss more explicit developments of natural in father of church, stoics and Aquinas Thomas.
Like any other scholars before his time, he asserts that William nominalism of the Ockham led to modern assaults, critique, dismissal and even dismissal of natural law hence he gave the was to discuss the ways Thomas Hobbes, Descartes Rene and John Locke. The concept of natural theory is clear, well-versed concise as well as standard in secondary literature.
The second section of the book is thought-provoking and truly innovative. The author articulates with effectiveness, meticulousness and great precision the devastating impacts or effects of rejection of law has had on modernity. The author first handles the idea of selfhood, through which the classical acknowledgement and understanding of selflessness is bound to the intimate immoral soul that is unique and different for every person. The author further stipulates that the idea of selflessness has led to the reduction of self-inherent human dignity. Hills dismissal or rejection of selfhood ideas lead to his second chapter or topic, the chapter of free will. Despite the fact that Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle uphold on the idea of free will, he suggests that materialism in modernity does not only fervently or truncate dismiss natural law, but also the concept can be forgotten completely.
Free will definitely becomes a subject to be debated when it concerns determinism. This can only be possible if the free will and selfhood is curtailed and the law itself transformed and developed from classical perception or conception so as to dictate reason based on definitions that are undergirded by deontology, utilitarianism as well as the moral subjectivism and ultimately. As result of different definitions, the law is no longer concerned with moral principles and the impacts or the consequences end up becoming unleashed.
In addition, Hill’s book is well structured on how he traced the development and evolvement of western philosophy to modern times from classical times. The author uses western civilization to imply to a cross that we have never seen or experienced over in many years ago. He urges that the most cherished political and moral values, that is freedom, human dignity responsibility and moral truth can only make clear sense is we have a clear perception or understanding of classical world. The author incorporates other great philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas and Augustine to trace the evolvement and development of classical perceptions or worldview from or through their insights. The author believes that humans do not have the capability of understanding or comprehending deepest values with normally on views of others who believed in God, moral truth and human soul. In addition, Hills goes further to indicate how modern philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke and Descartes are contemporary thinkers, since they chiseled the way of founding the classical perception or understanding of universe and which forms the most important part of moral principles.
Today’s life is a result of the aftermath of natural law. The society has become culture-bound, and the culture denies or rejects the presence or evidence of natural law because the society favors some philosophies which serve as specific passions such pursuit of wealth and power, flight from Almighty God as well as the unquenchable quest for utopia which implies that the world is made in our own image. Then the questions are, how is this possible or how has it happened, what a synthesis that is forged in two millenniums of insight and brilliant thought and later gets torn apart and leaves us with nothing. In addition, if we talk about going back to ancient times, we will just arrive at where the society is today. Everything will either materialistically determined or what we have projected in our desires. However, even after having intellectual insight from the future, it is clear that currently, we have no strong grasp on reality like what ancient Greek philosophers had.
Now Hill’s book gives a clear and explores the decline and failure of the classical understanding of the world. Hill connects all such questions with a lot of clarity of expression and thought of evolvement and development of natural law, which in many instances, the reader can find it confusing as it is deeply engaging. The author uses the accounts of not only Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas, Augustine as well as other great philosophers but also uses the accounts of Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Kant among others who dismantled the concept of natural law, without even solving the problem the law was developed to solve. The book is riveting since it explores reasons for human existence, the very same problem, or issues we still to understand in this contemporary world. In addition, Hill enlightens humans in an encouraging and positive way, and still, he is aware who have considered natural law to be dead have a premature diagnosis.
Hill, upon reflection of cataclysmic changes, just like MacIntyre Alasdair did, he concludes that the disharmony caused by competition and the unharmonious philosophical concepts swamped around politics, academia, families and the media will definitely lead or create a genuine crisis. Most people claim that in order to uphold the fundamental concepts such as liberty, justice, fairness, equality, moderation, and virtues, most of the formulated philosophical concepts or ideas since the beginning of modernity will continue and eventually undercut the idea of natural law completely. Hill concludes by urging that natural law is able and capable of providing an efficient and appropriate philosophical defense of all principles of natural law. According to the author, natural law derives justice from freedom, and natural right by voluntarily choosing between what is right or good as well as equality to ensure that there is sameness for every individual in addition to moral virtues from the universe.
After Hill asserted that natural law is appropriate and necessary when upholding political and moral values, he avoided making mistakes that some authors and great scholars make. First, the authors do not hold on to the belief that natural law is only present to religious bodies or what the Catholics believe. Hill become a convert of Catholicism while he was emphasizing the pivotal role of natural law. He believed in what churches taught about natural law and took the initiative of unveiling what the concept of pre-catholic on natural law in stoics and Greeks was.
Moreover, he believed that natural law is universal, and therefore, congregants of traditions and churches are ought to understand and acknowledge the basic principles of natural law. Second, he dismisses the idea that all that lead to modern thought is considered evil. He admits that the ideas of modern thought lead to the growth of various ideas of classical thought like human dignity, selfhood, responsibility, and freedom. Hill concludes that these modern thoughts or ideas have flourished as a result of technology as well as a tradition of natural law.
Conclusion
We are not aware of what will happen or occur in the future, but through this remarkable and encouraging book, it provides a brilliant and intellectual insight about the history, but the book is much more. The book is marking a path and meaning vision that can directly lead us to the future. However, the book is only recommended for those who have some basic knowledge and insight on natural ideas.