“On May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, died in Minneapolis, Minnesota, after Derek Chauvin, a white police officer, knelt on his neck for almost nine minutes while he was lying face down handcuffed on the street” (Wikipedia). His murder, and many other horrifying acts of social injustice both before and in the wake of his tragic death, have rightly led to international moral outrage. Various unjust acts have led people to peacefully protest in the name of justice. The hope is that, more than ever before, these peaceful protests calling for justice, legal reform, political change, education, solidarity, and so on will substantially change the world for the better. Many of these efforts are already working as the daily news headlines show. Indeed, a Black Lives Matter rally in my own town has already made an impressive difference.
In the midst of all this action it may seem that the theoretical concerns of philosophy – the activity of asking, and attempting to give imaginative and well-argued answers to, general and fundamental questions in order to gain wisdom – might be too abstract for the times at hand (for my post on the nature of philosophy, go here). But I think it is crucial to think philosophically about the issues that are unfolding. In particular, we can draw upon resources from the branch of philosophy known as ethics. Ethics is not, in philosophy at least, synonymous with a set of customs, rules, commandments, or morals. It is essentially an activity of using reason to investigate our moral lives. This investigation usually involves formulating theories that (1) define our general and fundamental moral terms such as right and wrong (when it comes to actions) and good and bad (when it comes to the things or people we value) and (2) offer principles or rules of thumb which can then be applied to help us make well-argued judgments about specific moral issues (for a more substantial overview of ethics in philosophy, go here). In this series of posts, we will look at a few examples of how certain ethical theories can help us in the midst of our current problems. This post will focus on natural law theory, how it was employed to fight social injustice in the past, and its relevance to the murder of George Floyd and potential future reform.
Natural Law Theory
The origins of natural law theory can be traced back to ancient philosophers such as Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero who employed ideas central to it. It was then developed by medieval thinkers such as Tertullian, Justinian, and St. Augustine. But the first comprehensive formulation of the theory appears in the writings of the medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas. Natural law theory was then subsequently developed over the centuries in various directions, many theistic, some more secular in nature. Figures as diverse as Moses Maimonides, Francisco Suarez, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, and John Locke made substantial philosophical contributions to its development. And the tradition continues to thrive in contemporary philosophy, political action, law, and religion.
The details of this diverse history are complex. But the basic ideas are straightforward and powerful. According to natural law theory, we begin by recognizing certain good potentials of human nature (to be rational, social, loving, friendly, creative, free, responsible, kind, etc.). This recognition can come about just using our reason—we don’t need revelation from God or any mysterious capacities or talents. We then judge actions to be right if they facilitate the actualization of this potential and wrong if they thwart it. Action can then be both guided and judged by articulating natural moral laws that prescribe how we should act rather than just describe how we do act. These laws, being grounded in our shared humanity, are universal (they would apply everywhere at all times), objective (not only a matter of personal or cultural opinion), and intelligible (capable of being rationally understood either immediately or after careful consideration). Once we have natural laws we can use them to justify natural rights. Natural rights will be those things that are essential to us if we are to realize our good natural potentials. Natural rights, just like natural laws, are not contingent on the decisions of a particular society like civil rights are. Rather, they are inalienable and necessary if our natural potentials are to be actualized at all (if you want a more thorough overview of natural law theory, go here. If you want to consider a set of objections and responses to natural law theory, go here).
Before turning to some historical examples of the theory in reference to social injustice, let’s consider a plausible example to make things less abstract. Aristotle (322-384 BC) argued that to fully understand something it is necessary to understand its natural purpose or essential function (telos). In Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that humankind’s natural purpose is reason. It is the one trait unique to us and definitive of our nature. But if reason is our defining characteristic—our essence—then our natural purpose, according to Aristotle, is to actualize this potential reason as much as possible in the form of moral and intellectual virtue. By doing so we can become fully actualized human beings and reach happiness or fulfillment (eudaimonia).
Now once this view of human nature is in place we can formulate the following natural moral law:
NML: We should all develop our rational capacities.
Again, according to natural law theory we begin by recognizing certain good potentials of human nature and then judge actions to be right if they facilitate the actualization of this potential. In this case, we have the recognition of a natural good we possess—the potential to reason—and then we have a moral prescription of right action based on that recognition. Far from being just a scientific description of what we in fact are—rational animals—it goes on to provide a moral prescription. This prescription can lead to concrete ways to guide our behavior and evaluate our motivations, the acts that follow from these motivations, and the consequences that follow from our acts. For example, we could argue that everyone should get educated and should have a right to education. After all, one of the bad consequences of not getting educated is that it prevents the realization of our rational nature. Moreover, any motive to prevent education would be bad and any act thwarting education would be wrong. Thus we could articulate a second natural moral law that includes a natural right:
NML: Everyone should get educated and should have a right to education.
We could also argue that people shouldn’t grow up in a totalitarian regime where dissent is crushed and propaganda replaces the truth. After all, such a society would be bad insofar as truth and free debate are integral to the development of reason. And we could argue that forms of abuse (child abuse, substance abuse, and so on) that impair the proper function of the brain are wrong as well. A similar logic could then be used for generating any number of prescriptions for preserving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Natural Law Theory, Social Injustice, and George Floyd
We can now turn to social injustice by considering how Martin Luther King, Jr. employed natural law theory to justify his position against segregation when according to the law his actions were wrong. Recall he ended up in the Birmingham jail because he was non-violently opposing segregation. As a result, he couldn’t appeal to the law to make his moral case. Rather, he used natural law theory to make a moral case in support of his actions. He argued that segregation is wrong because it thwarts human nature – it “distorts the soul” and “damages the personality” as he put it – by preventing both the segregated and the segregators from actualizing their natural social and rational potentials. Consider this excerpt from his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” (April 16, 1963) in which he explicitly makes reference to natural law:
“I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.”
King’s case makes it clear that, on the one hand, what is legal is not necessarily moral and, on the other hand, when the law fails us we must be prepared to argue in defense of the ideas that guide our actions. I explore King’s use of natural law theory in relation to racism in much more detail here.
Natural law theory’s justification of natural rights as grounded in our shared human nature played a crucial role in the decisive Nuremberg Trials as well. Barbara MacKinnon, in her book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (Cengage, 2015), explains:
“The Nuremberg trials were trials of Nazi war criminals held in Nuremberg, Germany, from 1945 to 1949. There were thirteen trials in all. In the first trial, Nazi leaders were found guilty of violating international law by starting an aggressive war…in other trials, defendants were accused of committing atrocities against civilians…The defense contended that the military personnel, judges, and doctors were only following orders from their superiors in the Nazi regime. However, the prosecution argued successfully that that even if the experimentation did not violate the defendant’s own laws, they were still “crimes against humanity.” The idea was that a law more basic than civil laws exists—a moral law—and these doctors and others should have known what this basic moral law required.” (134-135).
A photo from the Nuremberg Trials. “The main target of the prosecution was Hermann Göring (left), considered to be the most important surviving official in Nazi Germany.” (Wikipedia)
Natural theory also helped convict Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann who received the death penalty and was hanged on June 1, 1962. Without a philosophical account of natural rights, rights that are universal unlike civil rights, it appeared Eichmann would go free. After all, what he did was legal under the Third Reich and, once the war ended, he couldn’t be tried in a court of another country. But again, what is legal is not necessarily moral. So the prosecution was able to employ natural law theory to show how Eichmann, too, committed crimes against our shared humanity. Thus the clever lawyers who defended a Nazi who ordered the death of six million Jews were refuted and justice prevailed.
Adolf Eichmann facing Justice
We can generalize from these examples and see how, when it comes to other forms of social injustice such as sexism, human trafficking, health inequality, the exploitation of workers, and so on, natural rights are being disregarded and good natural potentials are compromised or destroyed. And these examples allow us to see how the murder of George Floyd was objectively immoral since Floyd’s natural rights were completely disregarded. Floyd, who was handcuffed and struggling to breathe, obviously posed no threat to Chauvin and the three other officers at his side. Yet Chauvin continued, for 8 minutes and 46 seconds, to treat Floyd as a mere thing that deserved no consideration, no dialogue, and no respect. This reveals his actions to be more than simply immoral: they were evil in their sadistic, gratuitous, and horrific disregard of Floyd’s humanity.
Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd
This horror can be accounted for by natural law theory. After all, if we all have a shared nature then, despite our various personal and cultural differences, we should see the evil of what happened, be disgusted by it, and take some steps to eradicate it (just as the Nazi war criminals found guilty at Nuremberg should have seen the Jews as humans and acted accordingly). Those who do not have this reaction are, according to the theory, radically compromised as humans: they have privations, lacks of being, such as the vices of ignorance (lack of wisdom), cowardice (lack of courage), injustice (lack of fairness), and callous indifference (lack of sympathy). These privations show how their very nature is passing from goodness, virtue, and fulfillment to evil, vice, and decay (for my post series on the privation theory of evil, go here). Ideally such people will change for the better as they learn more about themselves and others through honest and desegregated dialogue. No one is perfect, we all have a lot to learn, and working together to reduce our myopias is surely the way to move forward. But those who refuse to address their racism may, as we continue to see, act in self-defeating ways that have serious social, professional, and legal consequences. Indeed, we can now count on many racists to out themselves. This is not surprising since, as Aristotle pointed out, people with vicious characters make bad judgments and are full of regrets. Unfortunately, many racists will escape moral and legal justice at the hands of others. But there is a self-inflicted punishment they cannot avoid, namely, a distorted soul full of vices that excludes them from genuine fellowship with themselves, many of their fellow human beings, and God.
Why Care about Theory?
Now, it may seem we have no need for all this theory given the direct and obvious immorality of Floyd’s death and other acts of oppression. Indeed, the call to offer justifications might even seem offensive. But it is important to remember that there are also clever and concealed racists, often with fancy degrees and institutional affiliations, at all levels of society who will use sophisticated language, ideas, theories, laws, and even philosophy itself to prevent real, long-lasting reform in education, the prison system, the family, the media, the police, politics, and so on from taking place. Protests rightly invoke words like ‘rights’, ‘equality’, ‘liberty’, ‘freedom’, and so on; they also employ powerful slogans, songs, and chants. But such modes of expressions may not be enough in certain situations which require articulate speech and convincing arguments. The examples mentioned above – King’s peaceful protests, the prosecution of Nazi war crimes, and the global Black Lives Matter movement – all show how indispensable courageous action is to change. And we can’t overlook the importance of feeling for those who have experienced the evils of racism and other forms of oppression. Love, kindness, consideration, and various forms of solidarity and support must be included. But, as we have seen, there was a time when philosophical theory played a role and without it we wouldn’t have established certain reforms such as the Geneva Conventions (see here) and the Civil Rights Act (see here). It may be the case that, should communities, states, and even countries begin legal reform in the wake of recent protests, natural rights will be part of the complex dialogue. Having a theory that justifies those rights and connects them to various laws rationally grounded in our shared human nature may help secure a better future. I hope the ideas in this post, while not perfect or completely convincing, can help you and your community think hard about how to face evil with body, heart, and mind.
Feel free to share your thoughts, comments, questions, examples, suggestions, and so on below. I discuss another way philosophy can help from an existential perspective in part two of this series here.