Natural law vs. man-made law

In the spring of 1963, Martin Luther King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama, for leading a series of non-violent protests against racial discrimination that was written into the laws of most southern states.

Birmingham was probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States with an ugly record of brutality toward blacks. Yet segregation was the law, and King was breaking those laws.

While in the Birmingham city jail, he received a letter from eight Alabama ministers who, although they agreed with his goals, believed the law had to be obeyed.

In one of American history’s most memorable defenses of breaking unjust laws, King responded with his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail”. King asked, how can one advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer, he said, "is found in the fact that there are two kinds of laws: just laws . . . and unjust laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws," King said, "but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." He quoted Thomas Aquinas: "An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal or natural law."

This has a ring of passion, but what is “moral law,” or “eternal or natural law”?

These questions have plagued mankind throughout history. They were addressed by Emperor Nero who outlawed Christianity, President Lincoln who emancipated the slaves, and are now asked of our modern politicians who pass laws against a vast array of things on the basis of morality, from stem-cell research to same-sex marriage. Yet, the questions are never satisfied. Laws are passed on the basis of morality, but there is no agreement about what is “moral” and what is not.

We would ask Mr. King, “What is ‘natural law?’” He would say it is the law of God. But that is wide open to interpretation. A more useful approach would be to study and understand nature itself. As science delves deeper into the nature of life, and specifically our human nature, we find ourselves closing in on a more precise understanding of how a society’s laws can be consistent with natural law.

Here at the Sovereign Society, we believe that the freedom that Mr. King so eloquently fought for requires more than man-made laws assuring equal treatment of all. We believe that human nature, built into us all, requires each individual have control over his own life and property, and be free to dispose and trade it with whomever he pleases, as long as he doesn’t infringe on the right of anyone else to do the same.

Thus, we would support Mr. King’s vision of freedom from unequal treatment under the law, but not support any idea that individuals themselves should not have the right to use and dispose of their property, even though they might individually chose to discriminate. The absolute respect for the sovereignty of every individual is the basis of a truly free society.