CIVIL
LAW, MORAL LAW, AND GOD
I.
WHAT IS LAW THAT WE SHOULD RESPECT IT?
A. Declaration
of Independence :
inalienable rights granted by our Creator
B. The
Nuremberg war
trials and Nazi “crimes against humanity” (See John Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law)
C. Martin
Luther King and the reform of civil law based on higher, moral law
D. Questions
of jurisprudence: philosophical basis; justification of law; meta-ethics
II.
ARTHUR LEFF AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF LAW
A. “The
modernist impasse” or the secularization of law in the West (see Phillip E.
Johnson, “Nihilism and the End of the Law”)
1. Law
as independent of God: “We’re free of God”
2. Law
as expression of contingent human arrangements only: “Oh God,
we’re free”
B. Arthur Leff’s “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural
Law,” Duke Law Review
1. Thesis:
Authority of law depends on an ultimate Evaluator; without this
Evaluator all law is arbitrary, however it is formulated.
2. This God would have to be
personal, moral, and communicative.
3.
Moral statements as “performative utterances”
4.
The conditions of performative success: authority in a situation
5.
The absence of God in the moral sphere: no moral authority
C. Other
non-divine principles for establishing the law
1. Descriptivism/conventionalism:
leaves everything alone; no outside judgment upon established legal systems.
Legal positivism.
2. Personalism:
authority in individuals (godlets)—anarchy
3. Majoritarianism:
no basis in a moral principle beyond godlets
4. Constitutionalism:
not infallible, requires interpretation; not exhaustive
III.
LEFF’S DILEMMA AND THE MODERNIST IMPASSE
A. All
other evaluators fail to perform; morality and law are unjustified,
unauthorized.
B. No
one can replace God as the ultimate Evaluator and justification of moral
law
and civil law (“There is none like unto the LORD”).
C. Nevertheless: evil exists; heroism exists
(“Sez who?”).
D. Either God or nihilism (“God help us”)
IV.
ANWERING LEFF’S DILEMMA
A. An
argument for the Ultimate Evaluator (by modus
tolens)
1. If
there is no God (P), then morality
and law lose their foundations and there is no objective good and evil (Q). (Leff and other arguments:
Nietzsche, Sartre, Dostoyevsky.) If P,
then Q.
2. There
is objective good and evil. Leff: “There is in the world such a thing as evil.”
(See Romans 2:14-15 on the law written on the human heart.)
3. Therefore:
it is false that morality and law lose their foundations and there is no
objective good or evil. (not-Q)
4. Therefore:
God exists as the Ultimate Evaluator (Leff, illogically, to the contrary). By modus tolens: not-Q; therefore, not-P.
5. Therefore;
nihilism is false.
B. An
argument against atheism, the claim that there is no Ultimate Evaluator
1. If
there is no God (P), then morality
and law lose their foundations and there is no objective good and evil (Q). If
P, then Q.
2. There
is no God. (Leff: “It looks as if we are all we have.”) (P)
3. Therefore:
morality and law lose their foundations and there is no objective good and evil
(nihilism: “God help us”). By modus
ponens: P; therefore, Q.
4. But:
Leff: “There is in the world such a
thing as evil.” Objective good and evil do
exist. (not-Q)
5. If
not-Q; therefore: not-P. By modus tolens
6. Therefore:
God does exist as the Ultimate Evaluator (same conclusion as the previous argument).
7. Therefore,
nihilism is false (same conclusion as the previous argument).
C. The
simplified argument (disjunctive
syllogism)
1. Either
God exists (P) or nihilism is true (Q). P
or Q.
2. Nihilism
is not true. (not-Q)
3. Therefore,
God exists. (P)
D. Responses
to three objections to God as the basis of morality and law
1. Making
God the ultimate Evaluator makes morality and law arbitrary.
a. God’s
commands are based on God’s character and the nature of the
world God has created. “I the Lord do not
change” (Malachi 3:6).
b. God’s
evaluations and commands are not arbitrary edicts of
changeable divine will, but are based on
wisdom (Proverbs 8).
c. Christian
perspective: God’s character is demonstrated historically in Jesus Christ (Luke
1:1-4; John 1:1-3; 14-18).
2. Moral
truth can exist objectively apart from God’s existence.
a. Moral
law needs a Law-giver, imperatives, claims upon us, duty.
b. A
godless world coupled with human knowledge of objective moral principles is
exceedingly unlikely give an impersonal, chance universe.
3. Recognizing
God as the Evaluator would lead to a dangerous theocracy.
a. A
theological basis for law does not entail a theocracy; consider early
American law and jurisprudence.
b. An
unacceptable nihilism seems to be the only other alternative;
consider the USSR . Law and rights were created
by the State alone.
V.
CONCLUSIONS: GOD CAN HELP US
A. Modernist
impasse is not solvable given its own premises: “God help us.”
B. God
as Ultimate Evaluator gives a solid basis for morality and civil law.
C. Two
qualifications to my argument
1. Not
a complete apologetic for Christian theism, although a foundation for
personalist theism and some suggestions. Many other arguments available.
2. Much
more is required for a good society than well-rooted, authorized civil law:
moral and spiritual renewal and consistency.
VI.
RESOURCES ON GOD, MORALITY, AND LAW
A. Stephen
L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief: How
American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic
Books, 1993). Examines the secularization of law and how it marginalizes
religion.
B. Douglas
Groothuis, Truth Decay: Defending
Christianity Against the Challenges of Postmodernism (Downers Grove , IL :
InterVarsity Press, 2000). See
especially, chapter eight, “Ethics Without Reality, Postmodernist Style,” on
postmodernist attempts (particularly by Rorty and Foucault) to establish
morality apart from God and objective moral truths.
C. Douglas
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A
Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 2011). See especially, “The Moral Argument for God,” which draws on
Arthur Leff’s essay, “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.”
D. Douglas
Groothuis, “Thomas Nagel’s ‘Last Word’ on the Metaphysics of Rationality and
Morality,” Philosophia Christi, 2nd
series, no. 1 (1999):115-122. A critique of one attempt by a notable
philosopher to establish objective morality and rationality apart from the
existence of God.
E. Phillip
E. Johnson, “Nihilism and the End of the Law,” First Things, March 1993, 19-25. A reflection on Leff’s dilemma and
how it relates to contemporary debates about civil law in America .
F. Arthur
Leff, “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Duke
Law Journal, 1979, no. 6 (December):1229-1246. A pivotal and penetrating
analysis.
G. John
Warwick Montgomery, The Law Above the Law
(Minneapolis, MN: Betheny Publishers, 1975). Considers the relationship between
civil law and theology.
H. J.
P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City : A Defense of Christianity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987). See especially, chapter four, “God and
the Meaning of Life,” for a defense of the claim that the existence of God is
required for objective morality and existential meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Nasty responses will not be posted.