Demystifying Natural Law
We usually assume that if a rule is officially enacted, we have an obligation to follow it. The right officials signed off, the proper steps were followed, and the authorities have the power to enforce it.
Whether you are studying your first court cases or simply dealing with workplace policies and automated software, you are usually taught to focus on this basic checklist: Did the rule follow the official process?
But that leaves out a much bigger question: What happens when an official rule is deeply unfair, harmful, or senseless? What is fair? What is harm? Does having the authority to enforce a command make it genuinely legitimate?
This is a first of a series that looks behind the mechanics of legal codes and policy handbooks to explore how law, justice, and authority actually work in everyday life — with less academic clutter. Think, Philosophy of Law for beginners, non-philosophy majors, and anyone, like myself, looking for better mental models for navigating modern structures.
We begin with Natural Law: the idea that a rule isn’t legitimate just because someone in power wrote it down, but because it genuinely serves human well-being and practical common sense.
Beyond the Casebook #1: Demystifying Natural Law
Natural law offers a framework for exploring what gives a rule its legitimacy, rather than viewing it purely as a mystical concept or a fixed set of commands. It invites us to consider fundamental questions that statutory texts or automated scripts may leave unaddressed: How is legal authority established? Why should individuals feel an obligation to comply with a rule? And what distinguishes a genuinely valid law from arbitrary coercion?
Natural law insists that law is not merely whatever someone with a badge, a majority vote, or root admin access happens to command. It treats law as an enterprise rooted in practical human reason — designed to facilitate human flourishing and protect the common good.
- What you evaluate: Human flourishing, fundamental human goods (such as life, knowledge, and fair dealing), and the shared conditions of community life.
- How you evaluate: Through practical reason (orthos logos or “right reason”) — testing whether a rule provides genuine, compelling reasons for rational beings to follow it, rather than arbitrary coercion.
- Why it binds: Because legitimate authority is derived from serving the community’s well-being. When a rule violently undermines that purpose, its moral claim to our obedience collapses.
The Positivism Trap: “Is” vs. “Ought”
When you start exploring legal theory, you will find yourself running into legal positivism, which comes from the Latin positum, meaning “laid down” or enacted. At its core, positivism treats law as a human artifact — a social invention created by specific people, at a specific time, to get a specific job done.
The central claim of legal positivism is the Separation Thesis: the idea that what the law is must be kept completely separate from what the law ought to be. As philosopher John Austin famously puts it: “The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another.” A rule doesn’t need to be wise, fair, or moral to be legally valid; it just needs to come from the recognized authority and follow the official process.
For anyone working with technology, this logic will sound instantly familiar. It is the mindset of a code compiler: If the code adheres to system syntax, compiles without errors, and runs with the right admin permissions, the script is valid. The compiler doesn’t care whether the script is distributing life-saving medicine or running a ransomware scam. The mechanics of the program are one thing; its moral impact is an entirely separate question.
That is legal positivism in a nutshell: law as a social operating system.
The Fundamental Divide: Man-Made Rules vs. Human Purpose
This is where positivism seems to clash with natural law. The debate isn’t about whether laws exist on paper, but where their authority actually comes from:
Why the Distinction Matters
This is not to say that positivism is malicious. In fact, thinkers like H.L.A. Hart argued that positivism offers moral clarity: by admitting that a rule is simply an exercise of state power, we are less likely to blindly assume that whatever the government or the platform commands is automatically good. Hart pointed out that it is entirely consistent to say: “This rule is legally valid, but it is too wicked to obey.” The trap occurs when we stop there.
If we look at rules — or automated systems — purely through a positivist lens, we reduce justice to administrative compliance. We accept the defense: “The policy followed standard protocol,” or “The algorithm executed strictly according to spec.”
Get Rory L. Torres’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Natural law steps in as the necessary counterweight. It insists that rules and tech architectures are not self-justifying games. Because law exists to serve rational human communities, any law, corporate policy, or automated script that treats people as mere mechanical inputs rather than beings with dignity is not a triumph of order — it is broken at its very foundation.
Reason Without the Mysticism
Natural law does not demand that every legal rule be deduced directly from cosmic truths. Applying St. Thomas Aquinas’ point, while natural reason tells us that reckless driving is wrong, it cannot tell us whether the speed limit should be 50 or 60 kilometers per hour; that specific determination (determinatio) belongs entirely to positive human law.
Furthermore, modern natural law scholars like John Finnis and Mark Murphy clarify a crucial distinction between a “Strong” and a “Weak” natural law thesis: A shape with three sides is simply not a square (the strong reading). But consider a cheetah that has injured its leg and cannot run fast: it doesn’t cease to be a cheetah; rather, it is a “defective” cheetah. In the same way, an irrational, oppressive statute or automated system still exists as an official act, but it is defective as law. It fails to perform the characteristic function of law, which is to provide rational human beings with sound reasons for action.
The Purpose-to-Code Matrix
To understand natural law further, we look at two fundamental questions that define the history of legal and political philosophy: what a rule looks like structurally (its formal architecture) versus what a rule affects substantively (its normative gravity) — moral stakes reflects the relationship between law and morality, while determinacy addresses the issue between mechanical codification and evaluative discretion.
Low Determinacy + Low Moral Stakes = Informal / Conventional Social Norms. When rules govern low-stakes interactions without formal codification — think dinner table etiquette, conversational pauses, or informal workplace communication habits — keep the formal structures away. These rely on organic coordination. Heavy-handed codification here produces pointless friction.
High Determinacy + Low Moral Stakes = Conventional Positive Law / Protocols. This is the classical realm of determinatio where formal human rules and technical protocols excel. Whether we drive on the left or the right side of the road, or whether an API endpoint serializes in JSON or Protocol Buffers, there is no pre-existing moral answer. The primary value here is coordination, certainty, and clarity. Positive law and arbitrary technical design are valuable by settling matters that natural reason leaves open.
Meanwhile,
Low Determinacy + High Moral Stakes = Foundational Natural Law. When dealing with core human goods — life, bodily integrity, freedom from arbitrary violence, and equal protection — rules must align with objective moral reasons. Principles like the prohibition against torturing the innocent, or the post-WWII Nuremberg standard that “crimes against humanity” remain unlawful even if sanctioned by domestic statutes, live here. At the risk of simplifying issues, a 500-page regulatory codex will not explain why exterminating a population or weaponizing famine is an assault on justice — natural law does.
High Determinacy + High Moral Stakes = Integrated Jurisprudence. This is the modern pressure point where tech law, constitutional governance, and philosophy collide. Think of algorithmic sentencing tools, automated credit scoring, clinical triage software, or digital surveillance frameworks. Here, you have dense, rigid code coupled with life-altering human consequences.
Treating these systems under a purely positivist lens (“the algorithm executed cleanly according to spec”) creates automated tyranny. This quadrant could demand the full rigor of natural law: checking whether the highly determinate technical implementation actually serves human flourishing, respects human vulnerability, and adheres to procedural fairness (what Lon Fuller called the “inner morality of law”).
Some Nuances
The Risk of Conflating “Determinacy” with “Codification”: In legal theory, natural law principles like “do no intentional harm to the innocent” are often considered conceptually absolute and determinate in their moral prohibition, even if their statutory expression is broad. Determinacy refers to formal or technical determinacy (i.e., algorithmic rigidity, explicit statutory rules, exact specifications) rather than moral clarity.
There is also dynamic movement from foundational natural law principles (top-left), which often get translated into positive constitutional protections (bills of rights, procedural due process) and eventually into technical compliance specs (top-right). The danger of the top-right quadrant is that as moral principles become embedded in code, systems suffer from statutory ossification — where people manage the metric or code while forgetting the moral purpose it was built to protect.
Practical Questions
Natural law is not an academic parlor game; it is an analytical audit tool. Whenever you evaluate a new statute, corporate policy, or automated technical system, start by asking:
- What basic human good is this serving? Does this rule protect life, promote truth and education, coordinate societal trust, or foster community? Or does it merely entrench the convenience and power of those writing the rules?
- Does it account for human vulnerability and limitation? As H.L.A. Hart observed in his “minimum content of natural law,” human beings are physically vulnerable, roughly equal in capacity, and limited in altruism and resources. A system that demands impossible physical performance or ignores human frailty is structurally defective.
- Is it an exercise of reason or pure coercion? Does the mandate persuade rational agents through intelligible purpose, or does it rely entirely on threats, penalties, and brute architectural locks to force compliance?
- Where does the code depart from its underlying function? Is the system experiencing “statutory ossification” — where the literal text or codebase is maintained to the letter even when the real-world outcome subverts the original purpose of justice?
Natural law isn’t about replacing statutory codes or software engineering with broad platitudes. Rather, it serves as a structural circuit breaker, reminding us that legality cannot be reduced to procedural compliance, and authority cannot be established merely by having the power to punish.
Whether a directive is drafted by a legislature or compiled by an AI agent, any rule that actively undermines human flourishing and common reason is not a triumph of order — it risks functioning more as an assertion of power than as legitimate law.
Have you ever come across a legal rule, organizational policy, or software app where strict technical compliance seemed to tension with practical reason or fairness? How did you make sense of that gap?
