Ever get that nagging feeling that some things are just wrong, regardless of what the "official" law says? That’s basically natural law whispering in your ear. It’s not about physics or gravity. It’s about a moral compass that supposedly comes pre-installed in every human being.
Think about it.
If you landed on a deserted island with three strangers, you wouldn't need a law degree to agree that murdering each other for the last coconut is a bad move. You just know. This "built-in" sense of justice is the heart of the def of natural law. It’s the idea that certain rights and values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and they can be understood through simple human reason.
What is the actual def of natural law?
The def of natural law is centered on the belief that there’s a higher, universal set of rules that governs human conduct. It’s different from "positive law," which is just the stuff humans write down in books, like speed limits or tax codes. Positive law changes depending on who’s in charge. Natural law? It’s supposed to be constant.
Ancient philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero were obsessed with this. Aristotle noticed that while some laws are local, others seem to apply everywhere. He called it "natural justice." Later, guys like Thomas Aquinas took it a step further. Aquinas argued that because humans are rational beings created by God (or nature, depending on your vibe), we can use our brains to figure out how to act.
It's not complicated.
It boils down to a few basic "goods": preserving life, procreating, educating offspring, and living in a society. When a government makes a law that violates these—like, say, a law that says it’s okay to steal from your neighbor—natural law theorists would say that law isn't just bad; it’s actually "no law at all." Lex iniusta non est lex. An unjust law is no law.
Why this isn't just dusty philosophy
You might think this is all just academic talk for people in togas. You'd be wrong. Natural law is the DNA of the modern world.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he wasn't just venting. He was citing natural law. When he wrote about "unalienable Rights" like "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," he was literally using the def of natural law to justify a revolution. He argued that the British King was violating laws that were "self-evident." You can't give these rights away, and the government can't take them, because the government didn't grant them in the first place. Nature did.
✨ Don't miss: Why the UK Weather Forecast UK is Always Changing (And How to Actually Read It)
The Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s leaned on this too. Martin Luther King Jr., writing from a jail cell in Birmingham, explicitly quoted St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. He argued that segregation was wrong because it didn't square with moral law. It degraded the human spirit. If he had relied only on "positive law," he would have had to admit that segregation was "legal." But he knew it wasn't just.
The tension between "Is" and "Ought"
There's a famous hurdle in this line of thinking called the "is-ought problem." David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, pointed it out. Just because nature is a certain way doesn't mean it ought to be that way.
Nature is brutal.
Animals eat each other alive. Disease kills indiscriminately. If we just followed "nature," we might conclude that "might makes right." Natural law theorists counter this by saying humans are unique because we have reason. We don't just act on instinct; we reflect. We find the "telos," or the purpose, of our existence.
Different Flavors of Natural Law
It’s not a monolith. People have argued about this for centuries, and they still do.
- The Religious View: This is the Aquinas route. God created the universe with a plan. By using our reason, we participate in God's eternal law. This view dominated Western thought for over a thousand years.
- The Secular View: Thinkers like Hugo Grotius and John Locke started moving away from the "God" part. They argued that even if there were no God, natural law would still exist because it’s based on the essential nature of being human. We are social, rational creatures. To survive and thrive, we need certain rules.
- The Modern "Internal" View: Lon Fuller, a legal scholar, argued that law has an "internal morality." If a law is kept secret, or if it's impossible to follow, it’s not really a law. It fails the basic test of what law is meant to do.
Is Natural Law still relevant in 2026?
Honestly, it’s more relevant than ever. Look at the debates around AI ethics or CRISPR gene editing.
When we ask, "Just because we can do this, should we?" we are engaging with the def of natural law. We are looking for a standard that exists outside of profit margins or technical capability. We are looking for what is fundamentally "good" for humanity.
🔗 Read more: Why Her Brother and Her Lover Erotic Book Still Dominates the Dark Romance Charts
Critics hate it, of course.
They say it’s "nonsense on stilts" (as Jeremy Bentham famously put it). They argue that "nature" is whatever you want it to be. Historically, people have used natural law to justify some pretty terrible things, including slavery and gender discrimination, by claiming those things were "natural." This is the danger. If everyone has their own version of "natural," who's right?
This is why modern legal systems mostly rely on Legal Positivism. We follow the rules because they were passed by a legitimate process, not because they are divinely inspired. But even the most hardcore positivist usually breaks when things get extreme. At the Nuremberg Trials, the defense was basically "we were just following the law." The world replied: "There is a law higher than yours."
How to use this in your daily life
Understanding the def of natural law isn't just for winning arguments at dinner parties. It’s a tool for personal integrity.
- Question the "Official": Don't assume a rule is right just because it’s a rule. Ask if it serves a human good. Does it protect life? Does it allow for growth?
- Find Your Core Values: If you had to strip away every social expectation and every written law, what would you still believe is right? That’s your personal natural law.
- Practice Reason: Natural law isn't about feelings or "vibes." It’s about using your brain to find universal truths. It requires logic and empathy working together.
- Advocate for Universal Rights: Support causes that protect fundamental human dignity across borders. Natural law doesn't care about passports.
Start by looking at your own workplace or community. Are there "unwritten rules" that everyone follows because they just make sense? Or are there written rules that everyone ignores because they feel fundamentally "off"? That's the def of natural law in action, right in front of you.
💡 You might also like: Finding the Right Image of a Circuit Breaker: What Most DIYers Get Wrong
Analyze your local policies through this lens. When a new regulation comes out, don't just look at the fine print. Look at the intent. If it serves to diminish human dignity or stifle the pursuit of truth, it’s failing the natural law test. You don't need to be a philosopher to see it. You just need to be human.
---