Elearning folder on webpage;

Furniture is rusty.

Legal theory:

School of natural law.

Lex iniusta non est lex. Ethical principles, more important than statutory law, than positive law. In situation of conflict, when a collision occurs ethical principles should be followed. They are called natural law (moral rules).

Basic classifications:

-justification of natural law: why should natural law observe?

Onthological justification – refers to the questions of being – some rules are written into the very structure of the world;

Some nazi theoreticians followed idea of natural law; home universe is ruled by one principle – survival of the fittest; they assumed statutory law should mirror that feature;

Axiological justification – rules of natural law can be derived from usual, objective morality

Theological justification – rules of natural law were created by god (any god)

Sociological justification – its followers claim that some rules are necessary (indespensible) for societies to survive. They cannot survive with these rules.

• Immutability of natural law:

Theories:

of static natural law:

1. Rules of natural law do not change over time and are exact in every culture and civilisation – respect for private property (was in Greece –> is now)

Of dynamic natural law: rules of natural law evolve over time in various contexts; in accordance of economic, political, legal, historical, cultural development;

Theory of natural law with changing content – rules of natural law always remain the same, the interpretation, construction changes over time

• Issue of the substance of natural law:

  Substantive natural law – contains rules of behavior, or specific values

  Procedural natural law – contains fundamental, basic conditions regarding the making of statutory law; law should not be impossible????????

  Issue of what should people do if there’s a collision? – 1. Radical theory – there’s a moral obligation to disobey immoral statutory law and even to overthrow the government/lawmaker;

1. Moderate theory – we always have to look at consequences of our actions; check consequences of obeying and disobeying law.

Hugo Grotius – definition of natural law: natural law is an order of righteous mind, which indicates that every human action depending on its concurents with nature is either morally necessary or morally reprehensible and as a consequence god either orders such an action or forbids it.

Natural law order is not a suggestion/recommendation/advise;

Righteous – righteous mind can see the difference between right and wrong. Mind – Grotius believed natural law is a rational system. It can be subjected to rational logical reasonable analysis. These rules are not arbitrary, they are not subjective; Every rational human being with rational mind can recognize the rules of natural law.

Human nature is a iary stick by which we measure human actions, actions which go against human nature also go against natural law. Actions which are agreement with human nature are also agreement with natural law.

We first have to investigate human nature in order to MAKE LO.

There’s a dualism in human nature – human beings possess biological nature (animal nature) – self preservation means/instinct, these are primary natural law. We also have a social nature – everyone possesses appetitus societatis – social instinct. An instinct that makes us create social communities. These are moral rules and secondary natural law.

4 such rules:

• Pacta sunt servanda – agreements should be kept

• Crimes should be (will be) punished –

• Private property should be respected

• Compensation should be paid for damages

Issue of god: Grotius definition considered secular one. It caused a lot of anger from Christian theologians; God is mentioned in this definition so wtf. 2 main reasons:

• “God cannot change natural law in the same way as he cannot make two times two not equal four” – powiedział. Since god was almighty and could do anything, how could Grotius claim that. Natural law flaws derived from this nature?? Hierarchy god -> human nature -> natural law; so god cannot change natural law without changing human nature first. If our nature gets changed we are no longer human. We can disregard god, but still natural law is there. Natural law is a common heritage of all mankind. Every decent human being shares the same moral principles.

We can prove the existence of natural law in two ways:

• There are many action the moral impact of each can be evaluated almost instinctively, instantenously, automatically, we simply know that such an action is morally correct or wrong;

• Posteriori way – investigates various concepts of morality, identified in books tralala, we can find a compromise, a common ground between civilization;

  Cultures disagree about origin, specific anthropological issues, quarrels about god’s role, nevertheless, there’s a common ground between philosophers, so we can safely assume that there is an actual natural law.

  People possess ius resistendi (right to resist), they do not have the duty to do it.