Natural Law: The Foundation Of An Orderly Economic System by Alberto M. Piedra, is sixth in the Acton Institute’s Studies in Ethics and Economics series, edited by Samuel Gregg. The preface to the series states that:
Economics as a discipline cannot be detached from a historical background that was, it is increasingly recognized, religious in nature. Adam Ferguson and Adam Smith drew on the works of sixteenth and seventeenth century Spanish theologians, who strove to understand the process of exchange and trade in order to better address the moral dilemmas they saw arising from the spread of commerce in the New World. After a long period in which economics became detached from theology and ethics, many economists and theologians now see the benefit of studying economic realities in their full cultural, often religious, content. The new series, Studies in Ethics and Economics, provides an international forum for exploring the difficult theological and economic questions that arise in pursuit of this objective.
Alberto Piedra presents a wonderful case in Natural Law for placing what he calls “natural law” or “divine law” as the focus for ordering society. He sees that human reason has replaced natural law as the focus for ordering society, and that this is detrimental to the human dignity and freedom of many members of society.
Here’s how Piedra describes the purpose of the book:
The purpose of this book is to review some of these basic issues that are related to man as the principal agent of economic activity and to his role in society: issues which are crucial for the preservation of freedom and human dignity. [p. 5]
First of all, one has to ask: What is natural—or divine—law? Piedra makes the point that divine law was the law by which the Creator wished the world to be governed—or more simply the understanding given us by God of what is right and what is wrong—or even what to do and what to avoid.
Piedra traces the thought that God—or the gods—have ordered certain things that are right to do and other things that are to be avoided for the ordering of society, from the Old Testament Judeo-Christian tradition through the Greek philosophers and the early Christian writers—highlighted by the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, who wrote that natural law was the eternal law in human nature. Natural law, then, is the idea that there were certain God-given rules by which to order society, and following these made for an orderly society that protected the dignity and freedom of all members of the society.
Article comments
1 - DrPat
I don't think repeating the phrase "natural, God-given law" so often in your review will have the effect you desire. The "ordering of society" by Reason - the paradigm that defined the Enlightenment - has certainly brought us no more selfish, arrogant, or bloody societies than did the societies organized by reference to God's will.
The problem is that, sooner or later, in any society, God's will or the Reason of Man must be interpreted by humans. Then, in my opinion, is when the "rights and human dignity of some are trampled by others."
Justification by "God's will" or by "reasonable right" is easy enough to make, if you are the one interpreting the basic organizing instructions. It isn't the source, it's the application.
2 - Bill Hayes
I could not agree more. I do feel, however, that when the "natural, God given law" (Piedra's term, not mine) is followed that there is a better chance for the rights of all to be protected. Unfortunately, many who claim to want a more Godly order of society only end up pushing their views -- which do not protect anyone but themselves.
There is not perfect answer -- but seeking God's true will of love for God and love for others might help!
3 - Robert Landbeck
Natural law theory has come completely unstuck and even discredited in the modern world. For the divisions that exist are contrary to any conception of a common, universal moral good within human nature. In fact just the contrary is all too apparent. That the best moral intentions can result in evil and thus human nature must itself be limited, not in its moral aspiration, but the means to reflect that potential in understanding and the integrity of conduct. That is to say that human nature is itself not moral.