Law

From an early age, children are taught that there are rules of what they may or may not do.  As they age, they learn to drive and discover that there are laws of what they may or may not do on the road.  When they become adults, the full weight of the law settles on their shoulders: a complex system of dos and don’ts that seem designed more to bewilder than anything else.  It is natural to sometimes question the rationale behind these rules and regulations, wondering what benefit can possibly be derived from something that seems plainly foolish.

Welcome to the discipline of law, one that is integral to daily life; however, it need not be as bewildering as common legal practice suggests.  This manifesto is not an exposition of laws themselves; rather, it is an outline of the foundation upon which a legal system should be based.  The goal of this paper is to first explain conflicting views on the law and then explain why one particular view is preferable.

Many people today believe in what is called legal positivism.  This is the belief that the foundation for the law is found in the state.  This is, in fact, a logical conclusion: since the state is the aspect of society responsible for making laws, it makes sense that it would be the source of authority from which the law is derived.  However, there is a fatal flaw involved in legal positivism: if the state is the source of the law, how permanent is the law?  In the United States, the government is constantly changing hands between political parties, transferring its allegiance from liberal to conservative and back again.  These sides have very different beliefs and agendas; therefore, what power gives the law general authority?  If the law is based upon the state, and the state changes its views every so often, what is to keep the law from changing just as often?  If such is the case and the laws in place this year may easily be replaced next year, why follow these laws when they will soon be obsolete?  Why waste time obeying a standard that has no foundation apart from political whim?

The main issue with this perspective is that it comes from an erroneous foundation.  People who embrace legal positivism also nearly always embrace atheism and some form of evolution.  Since they do not believe in any sort of deity, there can be no foundation for law outside of this universe.  Since evolution calls humanity the pinnacle of evolution, humanity is the only viable source from which the law can emanate.  However, humans are fatally flawed.  Take a look at the two world wars.  Millions of soldiers were killed in those wars without any side truly benefiting as a result.  Look at the slavery that existed, and still exists, across the world.  Do individuals who would chain and demean others of their own species seem responsible enough to create their own system of law?  Hardly.

Since humanity is not a viable foundation for the law, there must be another foundation.  The only other rational source of the law is God.  One cannot look to animals or to trees for legal systems: one would end up with a system mandating either killing and eating other humans indiscriminately or remaining stationary for life and attempting to grow as tall as possible.  Law must have an intelligent origin: if humans are not an option, God is the only choice.

If God is the source of law, how does He reveal it to humanity?  There are two channels He uses: the natural and the divine.  Natural law is that which is apparent in the structure of the world.  Everyone knows that killing is wrong.  It is easy to look at the world and argue that not everyone knows this, but such is not the case.  Cultures that embrace honor killings, for instance, still have to find a way to justify it.  No one says, “I am going to kill you because I want to.”  Instead, they say, “I am going to kill you because you dishonored your family,” “I am going to kill you because my honor dictates I revenge myself on my friend,” or some such rationalization.  All humans who do not have some sort of mental disorder know that killing at its core is wrong.  So it is with stealing.  “Mine!” is one of the first words a baby will scream at its sibling or its parent.  The concept of personal possession is deeply ingrained in the human psyche: it is not taught or learned, it is programmed into the very nature of who we are.  Having what is yours taken from you is a violation of your ingrained awareness of personal property and naturally results in indignation and, in some cases, fury.

However, natural law is not enough to govern daily life.  It is for this reason that God also utilizes divine law, which is the sum of His explicitly revealed mandates for behaviour as laid forth in His Word, the Bible.  It is this set of mandates to which lawmakers should look in order to determine how to specifically address certain situations.  In fact, the phrase “lawmaker” is inherently incorrect, as humans should in no way be making laws.  Rather, members of the state should be known as students of the law: people who read God’s divine law and apply it to daily life.

The most important fact to be aware of in this system, however, is that it relies on the students of the law being impartial: they cannot favor one person or group of people over another, or the legal system God has implemented will not function.  It is only when those who apply God’s law to the world look at the situation without personal motive or preference that this legal system will properly function.

In conclusion, law is derived from God’s nature and takes two forms: natural law is revealed in the world and is instinctively known by all humans, while divine law is revealed in God’s Word and must be applied impartially to specific instances by people who dedicate their lives to understanding the mandates of God.  It is this system that functions most ideally in the world in which we live.