What Natural Law Is Not: Distinguishing Natural Law from Other, Related Normativities

Abstract

There has been great confusion around the use of the term ‘natural law.’ Leading authorities avoid using it altogether and the main proponent of natural law theory in English, John Mitchell Finnis, hardly uses it in his writings. ‘Natural law’ in this paper does not mean what it means in three different contexts in which the expression sometimes is used. These contexts are as follows. First, “natural law” as one of the several “natural laws” formerly called “eternal law”. Second, “natural law” as a religious idea, related to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Third, “natural law” as a certain mode of American jurisprudence, which has fallen into great discredit. This paper shall indicate in what respects the meaning that the author holds to be focal has something in common with, and how it differentiates from, the other meanings that prevail in those other contexts. In so doing, this paper will inevitably start to define natural law.