# Northern Arizona University/Philosophy of Law/Discussion of Online Texts/Week 9

[CQ 4: Grotius’ Discrepancy Between Innate Law and Human Corruption
“For since the law of nature is perpetual and unchangeable, nothing contradictory to it could be commanded by God, who is never unjust (16).” Therefore, in creation God could not have commanded corruption, contrariety, or unrest to become manifest in the natural world.
If it is believed that God is the necessary and efficient cause of all that exists, having implanted in each thing a unique nature and instinct by which “the wolf attacks with its teeth (19)” and which forms “the original complexion of our frame (22)”, then how does a creature in a pure state, such as at the beginning of creation, initially disobey the law? Cicero’s speech for Milo states that, “this law, which is not written, but innate, which we have not received by instruction, hearing or reading, but the elements of it have been engraven in our hearts and minds (22).” The law is so fundamental that even gentiles, who have not received the law and are not bound to act accordingly “do by nature the things contained in the law (15).” If the essence of human nature necessarily proceeds from the eternally just and peaceful divine law, how did humanity stray from the object of its authority thereby falling into a state of rights deprivation and war as a means for attaining the ends of peace? It seems to be axiomatic that by the nature of creation and the instillation of law, humanity was initially harmonious. If this is the case, how did discord arise from a perfect state causing society to degenerate to the point where it is conceivable for one member to usurp the rights of another?
To account for this discrepancy, Groitus’ original sin theology must be justified or else it can be assumed that he is positing a Hobbsian-esque state of nature. The Hobbsian justification also appears to fall into the same trap as Grotius by being unable to account for the discrepancy between innate law, asserted by Grotius, and human corruption.
Karlie c. Knudtsen]
First of All, I am not sure this is the right week to be posting this, so live with it if I am wrong.
In section XI of the first chapter of Hugo Grotius's book, he points out a third signification fo the word right which he likens to the word law. In this signification, he explains that it denotes a rule of moral action, or to do what is proper. He goes on to say that the word right, or law in this section, means not only to do what is just, but what is proper. Grotius makes the claim that right, under this notion applies not only to justice, but to all other virtues. By his whole distinction, I believe that grotius is trying to make the point that when we refer to rights in reference to laws, there should be a distinction with natural rights. In the next section, Grotius begins talking about natural laws, and they are, by his definitions, quite distinct from rights in laws. When rights become entangled with laws, we can no longer simplify rights to what is just or natural, but what must also consider what is proper within the boundaries of the law and society.
A major problem with this concept, is if what is proper to the law and or society is in direcct contradiction with what is a natural right. If laws go beyond what is mere justice, and include a bunch of other "virtues," than it is quite possible to adulterate the laws in provding for only what the law makers or politicians want. When people do what is only "proper" by the letter of the law, many of their natural rights can be obscured, or even lost to that which is un-proper by the law.
While I do not recall seeing an answer from Grotius to this question (though I will admit many of the sections are blurring together as I try to recall, I can very well imagine what some resonable objections would be. It could be said that it is up to the people to defend their natural rights when they are threatened by the letter of the law. When ever it seems that that which is proper conflicts far to much with that which is a natural right, the people that are governed by the laws have the right to fight the law and rebel if possible. This would lead to a very similar problem however. Soon, some people would be wrapped up in getting rid of supposedly infringing laws that were actually beneficial and were merely blinded by some desire to live in anarchy.
-Quintin Lucas