Over the next two weeks I will be reading the first few chapters of Ronald Dworkin's Law's Empire and seeing how it stands on the concept of Natural Law. Several of the philosophers in our class discussions and readings have spoken on Natural Law, and there have been many historical philosophers in history to speak on it as well. The prototypical philosophers for Natural Law are St. Thomas Aquinas (who spoke on it heavily in the Summa Theologica) and Immanuel Kant (who tried to redeem it through "universal reason").
My aim in this is to find a redeemable form of Natural Law that is not grounded in a theological foundation. Aquinas, Kant, Locke and King justify their beliefs in a universal law based on their Christian beliefs, but also testify that there are principles outside of religious thinking that can be used to justify their moral mechanisms. I will be looking at these secular principles and constructing an argument for natural law in this light.
However, if my studies reveal that it is impossible or highly improbable that a natural law can work in a secular manner, than I will explore the reasons why this is. I will also be using Dworkin's perspectives on Law and how this plays into our judiciary system, as many principles of law either consciously ground themselves in "desirable principles" (such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), or subconsciously ground them in dogmatism (e.g. how gay marriage is "unnatural" or "undermines the values of traditional marriage").
No comments:
Post a Comment