Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group E/Natural Law

Natural Law

Natural law argues that there is a true law, which is distinguishable from human law. The source of this higher law is a non-human source such as divine command, human nature or the order of nature. Laws that derive from these sources are considered to be legitimate law. Further, due to natural law’s natural origins it is believed to be morally right. In order for human law to be consistent with natural law, it must have morally right aims.

Natural law states true law is obeyed for various reasons, not just simply due to the threat of punishment. True law is also obeyed because of reasons relating to justice, fairness and morality. Additionally, natural law is immutable and does not change over time.

According to Thomas Aquinas the source of natural law is god and valid human law is derived from natural law. The objective of human law must be the common good. Thus natural law is teleological. Aquinas argues that human beings are rational beings because god creates them. God has given human beings natural reason and if natural reason is exercised properly human beings will be able to distinguish right and wrong. Aquinas further argues good is what all things seek, for law the good is the common good. Therefore, using their natural reason to ascertain the good and naturally seek it, human beings will reach the common good in the context of making laws. Thus according to Aquinas, human beings are not blindly led to the proper end rather human beings self direct themselves to that end.

According to Aquinas, law is defined as “nothing else than an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated” (pg. 4). Aquinas has 4 requirements for valid law, the law must be directed to the common good, it must follow practical reason, a valid lawmaker must make the law and it must be promulgated. Aquinas defines the common good as the good of the community, rather than good for a specific individual. Practical reason is derived from the proper exercise of natural reason and will provide the practical steps needed to achieve the end; the end of human law is the common good. A valid lawmaker, according to Aquinas, is one who is naturally in the position to know and recognize what the common good is and the one who can provide the practical steps to achieve that end. Aquinas requires laws to be promulgated because this ensures that everyone is able to know the law and therefore is able to ensure obedience of the law.

According to Aquinas law that does not pursue the common good is unjust law and therefore loses its binding force and can be disobeyed. Furthermore, if human law is contrary to natural law then human law is unjust and has no force. Judges make judgements, which Aquinas defines as “statement or decision of the just or right” (pg. 30). Further, a judgement is just when it follows the rectitude of justice, come from those in authority, and the reason is based on certainty. The judiciary should interpret the letter of the law however when the letter of the law is unjust, judges must render judgements based on the spirit of the law, which is the common good.

Application to K.L.B. v. B.C.

In R v KLB, Aquinas would find the Protection of Children Act, to be valid law. The legislation is directed at the common good, providing for and protecting children when they are placed in homes. This is legislation that is directed to the good for all since it is good for the community to provide for children and ensure they grow up to be good citizens. Also, the legislation provides reasoned steps to the Minister and social workers when placing children in homes and after the children have been placed to ensure the placement is in the best needs of the child. The legislation was created by the BC legislature. The BC legislature is a valid lawmaker due to their position as elected officials who have the specific job of creating laws good for the community and have the time and funding to conduct research on social problems and provide practical reasons to achieve the common good. The Protection of Children Act is published upon creation, thus it is written law. Further, it is available on the Internet, which further ensures people are able to know it.

On the other hand, Aquinas would not consider the common law of negligence to be valid law. Negligence law is directed at the common good by deterring harmful behaviour and providing relief for victims. However, it does not meet any of the other requirements of valid law. Negligence law does not provide individuals with reasoned steps to avoid or prevent harmful behaviour. It simply provides a general principle that if one owes another a duty of care they should conduct their actions in a way to avoid harm to this other person. Also, negligence law is only involved once an individual has been harmed and brings an action against the wrongdoer. It is then that negligence law does an assessment of the wrongdoer’s conduct and assesses what could have been done instead. Negligence law is judge made law. Aquinas does not consider judges to be valid lawmakers. Judges make decisions on a case by case basis and are mainly considering the circumstances of that case and the application of the law to that particular case. This is inconsistent with Aquinas argument to centralize the law. Lastly, negligence law is not promulgated. Although, judgements are written on a case by case basis however, the law of negligence itself is not written anywhere outside of cases. Thus, this creates problems for individuals to know the law since they will have to search various cases. Additionally, negligence law has evolved and will continue to evolve, which further creates difficulties for individuals to know the law.

Aquinas would not find the decisions of Chief Justice McLachlin or Justice Arbour to be just judgements. In the case, the justices did interpret the letter of the Protection of Children Act and the negligence laws and find wrongful conduct on the part of the Minister. However, liability was not imposed because of the expiration of the time limit imposed by the Limitations Act. Negligence law is not valid law and so Aquinas would not require the justices to apply it, the Protection of Children Act is valid law and should be applied. While the judgements are based on certainty and come from those in authority, the judgements do not follow the rectitude of justice. It is not in the common good for individuals to escape liability due to a technicality, Aquinas would find this does not to follow the rectitude of justice. The rectitude of justice is better served by allowing these individuals to receive relief for their harm and in particular the harm done was when these children were young and so naturally time would pass before these children would become adults and release the harm done and finally bring an action.