Introduction to Natural Law Theory (with Brian Bix) | Philosophy of Law #4

This conversation is part of the 'Philosophy of Law' Series ('Dare to know!' Philosophy Podcast). Today we are joined by Brian Bix. Brian Bix is a Professor of Law & Philosophy at University of Minnesota. He is the author of several books including ‘Law, Language, and Legal Determinacy’, ‘Jurisprudence: Theory and Context’ & ‘Contract Law : Rules, Theory, and Context’. Today, we will discuss his articles ‘Natural law theory’ & ‘Natural law theory: The modern tradition’.

PODCAST CHANNELS:

GUEST INFO:

HOST INFO:
My name is Fabian Corver, living in the Netherlands. I graduated last year from my Master's in Philosophy at the University of Glasgow. Currently, working for AI-focused start-up and reading lots of philosophy at night.

JOIN DISCORD (KANT & CHOMSKY READING GROUP):

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
0:42 - Background
2:34 - Objectives of Natural Law Theory
7:55 - Traditional Natural Law | Modern Natural Law
11:58 - "An unjust law is no law"
15:33 - Strong & Weak Natural Law
16:31 - Natural Law, Natural Rights, & Human Rights
21:14 - The Common Good
25:10 - The task of Natural Law theorists
27:55 - Integrating Natural Law & Legal Positivism?
32:47 - Modern Natural Law: Separability Thesis
38:24 - Lon Fuller & The Legal Subject
43:52 - Dworkin & Fuller: Natural Law Theorists?
46:15 - Benefits of Natural Law Theory

[Daretoknow]

OUTLINE:
0:00 - Introduction
0:42 - Background
2:34 - Objectives of Natural Law Theory
7:55 - Traditional Natural Law | Modern Natural Law
11:58 - "An unjust law is no law"
15:33 - Strong & Weak Natural Law
16:31 - Natural Law, Natural Rights, & Human Rights
21:14 - The Common Good
25:10 - The task of Natural Law theorists
27:55 - Integrating Natural Law & Legal Positivism?
32:47 - Modern Natural Law: Separability Thesis
38:24 - Lon Fuller & The Legal Subject
43:52 - Dworkin & Fuller: Natural Law Theorists?
46:15 - Benefits of Natural Law Theory

[PringlesOriginal]

These podcasts are amazing, thankyou! God bless you x

[philye]

I quite like this video, not only because the content is so good, but also the host is such a nice man, he marks the time according different questions. This does much help for listeners who have diverse interests.

[a-moralphilosopher]

This is a great interview, Fabian! Thank you for starting this series of interviews with legal philosophers, which I really enjoy. Any plans to invite more philosophers of law onto the show in the future?

[whiterider]

This professor literally spoke for 48 minutes and I learned absolutely nothing, I don't even know how that's possible...

[chriscockrell]

Good and bad (morality) is different than acceptable and unacceptable (public policy).

By the definition of a law, a law cannot be unjust. The law is part of the system which means there are multiple elements to the system of justice. Whether it’s God‘s justice or the king's justice or whoever makes the rules, the laws are the center that defines the system. A law can be unfair or immoral, but not unjust. An unjust law means that you don't find it acceptable or good. Injustice is when laws or the legal process are ignored or poorly considered, and that is not to blame on the law or the system, but the individuals who are misinterpreting or misapplying the function of the law.

Another interesting abstraction of justice is there must be a consequence or the law has no meaningless.
Is there a purpose to having a law, if there is no consequence? No.

Whether the consequence is for reparations or punishment or penalty or simply spite, the consequence is also part of a justice "system." I point out that our political systems always have an underlying justice system.

Does crime exist, if the is no law? No.

All of that is applicable to criminal law. Civil Law is another discussion all together. Are you a lawyer?

I loved the discussion. As an engineer, I'd never known what natural law theory is. Heard of it, yes, in passing but never spent time thinking and exploring the topic.

From the discussion, it sounds like the idea of absolutism mixed into law, or public policy (although there are some differences there). The idea that there is an absolute best and/or right, that the absolute is somehow discoverable. I somewhat blame science and the concept of determinism although the belief in those concepts are also based in an absolutism. Absolutism in those topics possibly worth labeling as religious, IMO. Religion is all about dogma, so religion and dogma doesn't bug me, I expect them mixed. But science and 'objective' processes incorporating dogmatic ideas like absolutism, starts to sound like religion to me.

I'm very interested in any aspects you think I'm wrong about. I'm not a lawyer, so there are likely many things I'm ignoring from traditional training approaches. Since I got interested in policy due to dislike of policy structure within the power grid (my area of engineering), and I have to give Trump some credit for stirring my interest in politics (political systems, as I have a lot of background in system theory), I've pushed pretty deep into trying to understand politics. It's categories and professional specialties, the nuance and structure.