To explicitly (as in communism and Islam), or implicitly (as in our own democratic system and Christianity) claim that man’s morality is a function of obeying the Law (which necessarily demands of man his property and time, to be taken not asked for, as we can clearly see ) is to claim that man’s natural state is Evil. For it says that man’s sole moral purpose is to subordinate the very thing that separate’s him from the beasts, and makes him man: his conscious will.
Further, if the Law is what makes man good, then of what use is the Law to man or man to the Law? For the implicit or explicit claim is that man, himself, alone, is utterly evil; and therefore how can what is good, the Law, make man good if man is utterly evil?
It can’t. Because absolute evil is by definition exclusive of what is good. It cannot be made good without contradicting itself.
Therefore, if man can be made good by the Law–his obedience thereto–then man is, himself, NOT actually evil. It is impossible that he should be in any way labeled an immoral creature at the natural level without ALSO nullifying the Law as a rational moral standard. And if man is not an immoral creature at the natural level then his morality is not a function of the Law, but a function of his nature–of himself. And this too nullifies the Law as any rational moral standard.
Any attempt then to create a moral society by obligating man to the Law will fail. Because an idea which contradicts itself (e.g. that morality = Law) cannot exist.
2 thoughts on “The “Law” is a Null Concept in any Context”
I don’t know if I agree with all you said here, I would have to see it further expounded, but it was certainly thought-provoking to me regarding the subject of Law, man and natural rights.
Thank you for reading, Jonathan. And thanks for your input!