Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
Every belief we hold must have an objective truth behind it which justifies to us the upholding of that
belief. I believe that there are objective ethical principles defining morals and sound judgment which
exist as eternal, universal principles without which we could not operate, that is to function, or
experience this world as we do in this reality. With such a belief there comes a need to justify its
support. Thus I have devised four basic principles which overlay the foundation of our existence and also
govern, and justify, all the moral standards we hold to be true. These principles comprise a ruling body
of Laws over reality and are thus called Nature’s Laws or, Natural Laws… Because we exist these Laws
must exist, and because these Laws do exist we also do exist, and function as we do. In my discourse I
have opted to argue the points of ethical moral truth from a strictly temporal position. However, the
implications of the principles covered, also hold value to spiritual contexts which take these ideas much
further than this study will allow.
In the past moral values have been tossed back and forth as a relative concept brought about by cultural
distinction, or have been thought to be an obscure innate constant handed down by God that must be
fallowed. Philosophers have debated for years on these points. Morals, why have them? Rather I feel a
better question would be, “What are they?” Knowing what they are defines a much clearer position
from which to answer the question, “Why have them?” Generally the idea of morals has to do with
conforming to rules of right conduct. Then we must ask what is right and what is wrong. If there is a
distinction that can be made than aught there to be a definite answer to the question? And shouldn’t
there be an answer that is universally right for everyone? Several aspects of Morals must be addressed
before going further…
The ideas of moral ethics are clearly divided into many sub categories of two basic theories which are:
Ethical Relativism and, Ethical Objectivism. Some fallow that because there is a God and he is just (or
moral) that He gives us laws of morals to fallow, and that is where morals come from, the scriptures
being the sores of all the truths about morals. This can’t be since we can conceive of an individual who is
very moral and yet has had no religious training. Such a person may not even believe in religion.
Also an appeal to authority cannot make a good argument for morality. If we fallow “moral” principles
because someone said we should, then we are only fallowing an idea blindly without understanding of
the significance. And if we are being moral because someone said you will suffer if you don’t, than we
are only acting out of fear which falls outside the realm of moral character. “Moral” must exist
independent of any deity, though that deity may support morals. In order for us to have a good reason
for being moral, morals must not be the result of divine creation but as an eternal principle to which
divinity is derived, not the other way around. In other words God does not make morals what they are,
morals are because they are, and God is because he is moral. This being the case Christian behavior to
follow God is more reasonably justified.
Next is the knowledge that morals differ greatly from one society to another and have always in the past
been dependant on how a society has developed from its experiences; but is there one right that is right
for everyone?
1
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
Today many mainstream moral principles have crossed almost every border and found their way into
the deepest regions of human populous. Ideas of criminal punishment, social etiquette, taking of life,
stealing, modesty, and the ideas we hold to each of these, are of a modern societal nature, however are
not new by any means. Still they exist more prevalently than ever before in the world today.
Facilitated by the spread of technology, communication, religious text, education, and government
reforms, mainstream society has become globalized. Though there have been mountains of difference in
moral standards among peoples in the past, as modern society flourishes, its ideas about true moral
judgment have been adopted and become more uniform worldwide. Why? I believe there are two
reasons.
The first is that society, like scientific discovery, is self correcting. Over time people from all over the
world will generate a better way of living. Doing so again and again over time will unlock the true order
of morals, what there are, and how to follow them. The second has to do with why this process has
taken so long.
Confusion in the past about what morals are, and the difference between right and wrong, and the
reasons we still debate it now, are that we lack a clear definition of what standards are right and which
are clearly wrong. The truth of this lack of understanding can be seen in the great variety of what are
called moral dilemmas. Naturally we would not have such a thing as a moral dilemma if we had a clear
understanding of what morals are and how to follow them.
Objectivists have long believed in the idea of innate independently existing true morals, absolute ethical
principles. But how to clearly define what they are is difficult because of our individual educations
and/or understandings. As a result, anyone with a popular idea is granted preferential support over past
established norms, and societies begin to back track. Most societies of past and present have developed
rules and laws around moral standards to accommodate conundrums such as these and thus develop
their differences in trying to avoid this backtracking. Individuals also in finding themselves in a moral
pickle may naturally seek for alternatives to solve situational difficulty.
What are the Laws?
All aspects of our ability to experience the world around us can be broken down into four natures of
Universal Law which govern every aspect of our diverse lifestyles and provide us with a structure to
understanding the world. These Laws which I will call Natural Laws are listed as fallow: The Law of
Orders, the Law of Exchange, the Law of Progression, and the Law of Consequence.
Each of these Laws relates to a certain aspect of human life, without which, the loss of even one would
destroy our understanding and interaction with the world (or reality) as we know it; they are universal
and necessary and apply to all elements and life.
As they are all involved concepts I will break them down one by one, starting with the Law of Orders.
The Law of Orders is an excellent place to begin our look at Natural Laws since we will find that each
being necessary and constant they also are reliant on each other in order to continue as constants. And
2
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
so in considering the concept of Orders we must recognize the connection it holds to the others in
organizing them. This should be kept in mind when considering the distinction and purpose of the other
Laws and how the others relate back to Order.
The Law of Orders:
All things within the span of creation have order. When we say “Orders” we of course are referring to
the organization of all things. All things exist within a set order (or organizational distinction) and are
subject to that order belonging to its organization. We can experience organization, we can observe it
also. It is evident that there exists a method to how we function in society, as well as nature, as well as
individually. Cause and effect play a vital role in this method which is seen on a macro scale as well as a
micro scale. We can interpret action and behavior and predict it. Through classifying, typing, and naming
we further organize for our own understanding. A ball belongs to the order of a sphere, and we belong
to the organization of mammal in the sub category of Human species. All this tells us Order must exist,
and thus all things have an organization to them. A cup belongs to the organizational order of a cup, etc.
However these orders extent far and beyond the mere concepts of physical objects and operate in
various forms. The Law of Orders must take root in every aspect of ever organization to exist as a
universal concept and does predetermine each orders possible behavior and function based on its
organization. A ball cannot be anything more than a ball, nor metal ever be anything more than metal
unless they are broken down into the sum of their parts and/or added to. Thus function and behavior
are predetermined and necessary or all reality as we experience it would not, and could not be.
Another way to look at the roots of Order is in nature which provides in its countless varieties of life
forms a constant with relationships. To go into detail, intimate relationships fall into the order of
reproduction, and are used specifically for the purpose of propagating a species to future generations;
this is one example of how Orders exist in our day to day lives. However as there is Law and we are
intelligent enough to choose our actions, there must be examples to where this order is broken. A basic
example of this would be found in the homosexuality of a species. This of course violates the Natural
Law of Orders since it goes against the purpose to which sexual intercourse with in a species was
organized.
With this understanding we must recognize that all things are organized with a specific behavioral
quality that was meant to be performed by that order for the purpose of greater organization and
greater order. With implications to our moral and ethical standards, I will list several specific examples
of violations and address them particularly with this one further note. The Law of Orders as a necessary
and eternal Law of nature must seek in itself to sustain all that is under its governing care (all things that
are organized) and thus will seek also to create as much organization as possible, because without
organization there cannot be order which is necessary to reality as we know it. This being so, material is
recycled and reshaped again and again, and species multiply, perpetuating their unique orders; this self
perpetuating quality holds to it a specific and eternal function which serves to maintain organization in
diversity. Anything beyond the boundaries of the purpose for this function is a perversion of the Law
and thus is un-ethical and immoral based on the violation of Natural Law from which all moral standards
are derived. For examples, anything that seeks to infringe upon the existence or purpose of another
3
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
order, or harm an existing order is a perversion of the Law and is un-ethical or immoral. Thus
homosexuality, the will full abuses of other individuals and other orders such as animals, promiscuity,
murder, and self augmentation of the body, all fall under violation of the first Law of nature and are unethical.
Naturally we are created in very distinct ways, male and female to state the obvious. This order is
designed to work together by natural process, fitting and behaving in a certain manner in order to
produce life by which the cycle of a species order may continue. Homosexuality violates this law in two
ways. The first is that the disregard of the process by which life is created would eventually lead to the
denaturing of the species found in this practice, leading to an end of its order. This Law of Orders
functions in a way to sustain and promote order to the greatest extent and variety and does not work to
destroy any order, or it could not exist. By this we see the error in this practice.
The second violation exists in the physical practice of homosexuality since, as I’ve said, the differing
bodies of male and female are designed to fit and work together toward natural processes where as the
opposite does not fit or work together to any process and is therefore in opposition. As such the practice
of homosexuality becomes nothing more than a selfish, self gratifying, and self seeking behavior since it
cannot serve a function outside of the self. The action of sexual gratification between male and female
bodies may also fall into violation of the law by which sex was organized to function, because constantly
give in to carnal desires and lustful thinking also serves no purpose outside of the self and make no place
for the consideration of the other person. Such pleasures should be kept in check and only used in the
proper place.
Considering the “proper place” will eventually lead us to consider another order, the order of
companionship which suggests to us that our species like many others is meant to be monogamous. A
scientific study will show that we are “organized,” chemically, to function in companionship with one
other. According to a study done by the University of California, San Francisco, forming a bond with
another individual starts out with key chemicals which are largely endorphins, giving a person a sense of
happiness and satisfaction whenever they are around someone of interest and creates a sort of drug
induced euphoria. Over time, and as the relationship deepens however, endorphins are released less
and less, and are eventually replaced by another chemical called Oxytocin, a hormone more frequently
known to play a role in mother child bonding during feeding. Oxytocin is found both in men and women
and has a role in bonding couples together for their lifetime (July issue of Psychiatry).
Sometimes however a person may feel that they have fallen “out of love” after a few months or up to
around three years, when the endorphins no longer play a great role in the couples lives together. Such
a person may leave the relationship to seek that high they felt at the beginning of their first relationship
only to find themselves in the same position once again a few months down the road. Going through
this process many times causes a person to become resistant to the chemical endorphins and will
require greater and greater stimulation to feel the high they have become addicted to. Thus many forms
of perversion take hold in that person and many abuses of this order are encountered such as
promiscuity.
4
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
It can also be mentioned that while two people of the same sex may also be able to form a chemical
bond with Oxytocin, they were never meant to. According to the Law of Orders they were not designed,
or organized, to work together in that way. And companionship of two people of the same sex cannot
be in harmony with this Law even in marriage since the two are not, under any circumstances, able to
complete the function that sex was organized to carry out. (Obringer, Lee Ann. “How Love Works.” How stuff
works, 2010. <http://people.howstuffworks.com/love7.htm>)
When considering marriage it seems, in a logical sense, necessary that we at times have a need to create
organizations ourselves, to maintain the foundation of this law of Orders, based on our ability to choose
the moral act or to disregard it. Though we may reason that marriage is created outside the law of
Orders since, nothing like it exists in any other form of living propagating life form; it is still an order,
since it is in harmony with the natural law and recognized by the vast majority of our order. It can thus
be interpreted as an amendment to the Law, reinforcing the natural chemical processes that take place.
Because though we are intelligent, we still often choose to ignore the natural processes.
There are many ways in which this first Law can be and has been violated aside from those already
listed, which may include but are not limited to: Abortion, which terminates the natural processes which
a women’s body is carrying out, unless the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother or child
both. Also Divorce, which terminates the order of the commitment made in marriage to endure
together to the end of one’s life; commitments especially of such great significance should always be
honored and endured and should not be made lightly. Adultery, which also violates the marriage
commitment to one’s spouse and may be a justification for one member leaving their spouse by
divorcement when the offence is not their own but the others. Spousal abuse, which again violates the
marriage commitment in that marriages often states or implies that a couple will endure together and
love and support and help one another. And I don’t know of any circumstance where abuse is in
harmony with any of these statements.
The other violations listed earlier are more easily understood and should not require much explanation,
but a few go as follows. Self augmentation: This violates the law because changes to the body in the
form of tattoos, body piercings, and surgeries outside reasonable need, alter the appearance and
function of the body from its original design, the design it was organized to function under, and can be
thought of as a perversion of the law and would thus be un-ethical.
Objections to this argument, and arguments designed to counter these statements should be kept in
context. It is important to note that certain laws a priory or a posteriori may exist without anyone
knowing it. Nevertheless, ignorance of a law does not eliminate the law; it only makes the consequences
of that law in many instances non applicable in every instance to those breaking it, while those
unwittingly fallowing a law may unwittingly fail to recognize the benefits. Such is the case with any law…
The Law of Progression
All things are in a state of progression, that is to say that they are moving from one state to another. The
recycling of orders and their materials is one example of how this takes place. As humans we progress in
a number of ways. Physically we are bombarded by varying levels of solar radiation which along with
5
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
other free radicals from toxins in our bodies, break apart the genetic chains in our cells. This along with
the constant multiplying of each cell which makes a copy of itself and dies, and each copy being slightly
different from the last, causes us to age and thus physically we progress from a young state to an older
state leading to death, a process which is present also in plant life called senescing.
All matter also moves from one state to another. Stone becomes sand, and sand is eventually
compacted becoming sandstone. Uranium eventually loses its radio activity and becomes led.
Progression is a relative term in this case, since the progress of a thing is subject to what it is and what
its ability’s are. Uranium is meant to lose particles of highly charged energy over time. Not that it is
becoming less, which would be a violation of the law, but that it is becoming something different. This is
the law of its progression because this is how it was organized to behave. If it ever stopped losing energy
and never became led than it will have stopped its progression and would be in violation of its own
order and would have to end its existence in this reality or cause an alteration of this reality, and thus it
would end this reality as we know it, or cause a new order to be created. But since nothing can change
from its current organization to another without possessing the properties of another state in it, this is
impossible.
With mankind this becomes a bit tricky, because we have multiple possibilities when it comes to
progression which can be listed in ways such as the progression of the body, of the mind, of emotional
state, and of the spiritual state. But most assuredly, according to this law, without progression according
to an orders design, which is derived from its organization, it is a waist and would therefore violate this
Law. Failure to use talents, the taking of harmful or intoxicating substances at will, the decrease in
abilities by way of laxity or laziness, or to stop or hinder someone else’s progression, are violations of
the Law of Progression, as well also is enhancing one’s self unnaturally and without necessity, is a
perversion of the Law of Progression and would therefore be un-ethical.
The Law of Exchange
As I’ve stated, the Law of Orders functions to sustain and maintain itself by diversity. The Law of
Exchange then serves as a counterbalancing agent to stabilize and maintain that diversity through unity.
Thus establishing greater order and greater order creates greater exchange. Exchange is necessary
because without it, there could be no harmony and the diversity of orders would not be able to exist as
they do. Reality would be affected and sees existing as we currently know and understand it.
Exchange takes place in a number of different ways. The Law’s basic function is defined in reference to
the state of interaction between any object, and considers Newtonian physics as well as Human
interactions regarding morals and there subsequent dilemmas... One example of exchange is in how
plants through photosynthesis take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen. One is harmful to plants while
the other is harmful to animal species. In this exchange we sustain each other, and in this sustaining
behavior, Exchange serves to balance and maintain all order. Being an eternal and universal principle it
also has roots into every kind of exchange possible. We could call this law the natural order of the Law
of Exchange, or likewise the natural order of the Law of Progression (previous), because as they have
6
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
function and purpose, and we can perceive their workings, we can say they are organized, and are thus
an extension of the Law of Orders.
Exchange happens in nature just as it happens in our lives. Interactions with other people, ourselves,
and the world in general cause this exchange. In fact it is relevant that we recognize that simply existing
denotes circumstances for exchange to take place. Exchange involving ethics involves a breakdown of
human behavior, which is to say that all human action can be quantified into four understandings. We
act by doing, 1) the right thing for the right reason, 2) doing the right thing for the wrong reason, 3)
doing the wrong thing for the right reason, and 4) doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. Given
this information it is no wonder we sometimes have a hard time with right and wrong, but
understanding the laws of nature will show that there is only one right answer, all others being wrong,
or un-ethical.
First analysis of an action must often be done in hind sight, meaning that often we cannot know all the
effects of an action until after (sometimes long after) an action has been done. Does the outcome effect
weather an action is moral or not?
Yes and no. Because we do not always know the details of an action or how it interacts with the Laws
because of a number of unknowable factors including what a person’s intentions were, what the
consequences were, mind set, how the action was done and so forth, we will find it hard to draw distinct
conclusions about the action. Therefore we must observe what an action does in order to understand
what is right and what is wrong. We steadily come closer to truth about moral behavior by acting and
observing what that action does based on all the variable details. But sometimes we may still be lacking
in information about a behavior and so cannot determine whether for sure an action is moral or not.
Example studies in psychology help to alleviate some of this uncertainty, but ultimately we are
functioning off of examples that are unworthy sources. It is evident that the best and quickest way to
establish and define true moral value and character is to have a distinct moral example that is perfect in
all aspects of moral fiber. This justifies Christian appeal to the Savior Jesus Christ to interpret cases in His
life. Interpretation of His works however has led to many immoral actions in the past and present. But
the failure we see in our histories, to utilize such an example would only stem from the examples of
those presenting His authority on matters, and not from Him, Himself, as He is not usually physically
present to define the moral action personally. So it is not reasonable to disregard aspects of Christ’s
doctrine based on how it has been utilized, as it has often been the case that such miss practices are not
His doctrine at all.
Again we must look at actions particularly and observe what they do to determine if it was right or
wrong. For example, a person may do service but for the purpose of being recognized which may cause
that individual to become disgruntled when they do not receive the desired outcome, which result is self
destructive, and violates the Law of Progression, making this a poor exchange. A person may choose to
not participate in a situation where another’s life is at stake and the first knows that they could help the
situation, but doesn’t with the reasoning that the situation could also bring harm to himself. This
however would violate the Law of Orders by allowing an order to end when the outcome could be
otherwise, another pore exchange. But also a person could interfere with hunting animals natural pray
7
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
by keeping it safe from the predators when it otherwise could be easily taken. But this would interfere
with the Law of Exchange, which keeps balance between all the orders by extension. Likewise actions
such as the viewing of pornography, lying, cheating, stealing, all fall under violation of the law of
exchange. Pornography manipulates individuals into addictive and promiscuous habits which violate the
Law of Orders and thus is a bad exchange. Lying falls in contrast to the Law of Exchange directly, by
providing a false exchange, as does cheating, and stealing.
It is also worth exploring how certain habits may fall under such a violation. Excess’s and extremes are
common in our society and are thus ignored for the most part. But excesses of the body and the mind
do violate the Law of Exchange, as do a number of extremes such as but not limited to, over eating,
excessive game play or TV watching and computer time, or too much time doing any one thing.
As far as extremes go, the use of superlatives (particularly those associated with swearing) and even
loud uncontrolled laughter would all fall under violations of the Law. This is because excesses and
extremes are perversions of the natural Law. Providing an unnecessary view or interpretation to
circumstances (Extremes) on the one hand (which is similar to lying), and causing an unbalanced mind or
body to substance ratio on the other (Excesses).
The Law of Consequence
The Next Law is the Law of Consequence which warrants the understanding that if I act then I will
receive action consequently from my doing. Likewise if I do not act than I will receive action based upon
my choice, consequently from my inaction. There is no choice, we cannot avoid it. And being similar to
the Law of Exchange there is always a movement between the two. It follows that a Law of
Consequence must exist because exchange takes place. But though similar in conception they work as
two separate entities toward the same end, which end is order. We will now see how the Law of Orders
and the Law of Consequence are connected. Consider Socrates in Plato’s “Republic”
Socrates is goaded by Glaucon about the nature of morality and tries to make his argument foolproof by
designing a scenario in which a farm boy named Gyges finds a ring that allows him to become invisible
and essentially immune to any consequences. We can assert two protests here by incorporating the
Laws of Consequence and Exchange. Obviously the moral implications of such a thing as the ring of
Gyges would be great and there would be those wishing to posses such a ring, but though the story has
practical application to reasoning out the possibilities of moral behavior, the scenario as a purely
reasonable argument is completely invalid. Not because such a ring does not exist or that no one has
found such a thing to exist or that it is a story made up for arguments sake, but because its premise goes
against Natural orders in order to prove a point. Such an argument cannot be valid. Here Glaucon is
making the assertion that consequences can be eliminated without consequences being eliminated.
Say that you did posses a ring that enabled you to do what you want with no consequences.
Does not the idea of moral behavior stem from the concept of consequence for action? Hence if
there were no consequences for action, than by process there would be no law acquainted with
any of your actions; if so than there is no purpose or reason behind action so long as law is not
in place. Without law we may then question the purpose of existence. To clarify, there being no
8
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
purpose or reason behind action without law, I mean that there could be no significance to
action since if there is no consequence than there could be neither negative consequence nor
positive consequence, so there would be no reason to posses such a ring, since it would do you
neither good nor evil.
However if we were to assume that by possessing the ring of no consequence
and understood that it only eliminated the negative consequences leaving you to only gain
from its use than we must also understand based on the premise that there is no negative
consequence that there would be no sorrow nor gilt nor burden of any kind for action taken
while possessing this ring. However since our understanding of the world is empirical, solely
based upon the foundation of experiences, if we do not posses guilt and cannot sorrow nor feel
any burden than we cannot posses any understanding of pleasure or happiness nor even
success. So again the possession of such a ring would still neither serve you good nor evil and
possessing it would be a waste since you would be without the ability to experience the joys
and pleasures of your success. Also, by so eliminating consequence you are only eliminating
law, and without law there is no order. Order maybe a relative term in this case since without
law to give the word substance there could be no concept of order in our consciousness. This
being the case can you imagine how living would be? With no law or concept of order then life
as we understand it would immediately cease to be, since all we would have left would be
existence with actions we don’t understand. We would not know why we do what we do or
why we go where we go, nor know any purpose for our existence, but existing none the less we
would be unaware of it and could only be categorized with the animals or perhaps less.
It is important to keep our mind clear about which actions and ideas we choose to entertain.
Much of our human wisdom may lead us to flattering thoughts and ideas such as the ring of
Gyges. But make no mistake; there is order in our world and for a reason, without which we
could not exist as we do. And as we do exist as we do, excepting that fate and its implications to
our reality, we learn to gain from it rather than spend our days wishing for something that
cannot be. Further, serving as an inherent concept to any behavior, we must look at the identity
of this Law as an end cap to the others, from which our understandings of them, and their
moral implications, are founded.
Why Be Moral?
As we have now established the foundation of the four Laws it is now possible to review certain
implications. For one, we have not yet answered the first question about morals, “Why we have them?”
An overview of the information already discussed should lead to the conclusion that what morals are, is
that they are a system of rules governing action and behavior of all things with a particular design of
necessity to balance relationships between objects and their interactions with each other, forming the
basis for reality, and thus, our ability to exist.
Having this understanding allows us to address the question more clearly. “Why do we have morals?”
The simple answer is that when we are in harmony with the natural order of things we may feel
justified, confident, self assured, without guilt, without doubt, and without despair. Put simply, we can
be happy, even the most happy we can be.
9
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
Most people understand happiness as the one thing that they are trying hard to get. Others if asked
would probably say they are happy, even if they are in obvious discord with the natural Laws as
outlined. It is possible that such people know very little of happiness, only possessing a sense of what
happiness is and derive their definition from the momentary satisfaction they receive from misbehavior,
and therefore have no idea about what true happiness is, or what it truly means to be happy. It is also
note worthy to say that ignorance of the law does not denote the validity of the law, as knowing it does
not denote its existence. Ignorance may only limit the impact on a person who is in violation of it, and
may also cause a person to be un-aware of the benefits of following the law. So a person may have a
form of happy in sin and be ignorant of the happiness found in virtue. Likewise a virtuous person
(ignorant of the law) may be missing the happiness they could be enjoying, and may feel unhappy, in a
sense, and even left out and seek after the “happiness” others seem to be enjoying.
Then if happiness is the outcome of following and understanding natural law, what is the outcome of
rejecting it? It would seem that there are certain factors in place which limit in varying degrees the
potential of a person who violates natural law. The laws all work to sustain themselves. It than may by
no means be unreasonable to consider that certain processes may exist to prevent or discourage long
and short term practices of an “order” outside the manner to which it was organized to function in. One
way this might be achieved (in species for example) is extinction, in the long term sense. While the short
term may be something less permanent, such as disease, which in fact afflict and spread rampantly
threw sexually promiscuous cultures and communities. In this way the consequences of promiscuity are
apparent. The Law of Orders in its self sustaining nature has designed, “orders” which afflict and
torment a people in this kind of violation. Consequence in other senses may be less significant but are
just as apparent. If a person behaves in a way that will take advantage of others around him, then
eventually others will mistrust and dis-fellowship him. This is the obvious consequence of violating the
established order of a people.
Does this last example suggest than that any order established by a people is a valid order and must be
recognized and adhered to in order to find happiness? No. Only if the established order falls in line with
the foundation of Natural Law, does it warrant respect. For example the American colonies violated the
law of the land, established by their home country which was taking advantage of them by the law,
which is unjust. The colony citizens rebelled against the law and engaged in the revolutionary war in
order to break free of the oppression and establish their own law and government (a new order). A
similar instance can be seen as well in India in which Gondi (named the father of India) lead an entire
people to rebel against Great Brittan for the oppression of their unjust laws.
In these cases it does not violate Natural Law to go against established order that is in violation of the
Natural Law, but is necessary and even required by Natural Law to rebel against such established orders.
Such action serves two fold. First to break down and destroy the unethical order, and forces those who
conceived the original violation, out of their complacency to hopefully correct their bad decisions. Such
was the case in India, and with the American colonies. Britten eventually granted India its independence
and recognized their autonomy, and America became a great nation of freedoms.
How to follow the Law:
10
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
Many of the diverse number of tribes located on the island of New Guinea have had little to no contact
with outsiders. “In the Highlands of New Guinea, rival clans have often fought wars lasting decades, in
which each killing provokes another.” Writes Jared Diamond in an article published by the New Yorker,
(April 21, 2008) called “Vengeance is Ours, Annals of Anthropology.” These clans have an established
rule of conduct that if someone from another tribe harms or kills someone of your tribe, a family
member of the one injured must avenge the wrong doing.
Such is the case of a young Handa clansman named Daniel (written about in the article). Daniel’s uncle
was killed in a battle amongst their rivals called the Ombal, and as a result had the responsibility of
seeking revenge against the “owner of the fight” in which his uncle was killed. Doing so makes him the
“owner” of the next fight. Daniel never got to see his uncle’s body because he was away at the time, but
his clansmen regard him with great respect and honor, and remember him as a hero because he died in
battle. If you die from sickness on the other hand you are not remembered for very long. The outcome
of such a conditional life style has resulted in such tribes being in perpetual battle with one another and
must be constantly on guard. But having never been taught any differently than to hate your enemy,
and living in constant battle from childhood has led the cultures to constant violations of Natural Law
without being aware of it. They are unaware of the self destructive nature of their own existence and
are unable to see a different path that would benefit all. To them, to be at war with other tribes and
foster perpetual hatred for them is right, is just, is moral. But they are blinded by this to the reality of
what they are doing to themselves, considering for example, many of these conflicts will never end until
one tribe is wiped out or flees. It is also worth mentioning that, according to the article, many such
conflicts start from someone’s pig ruining another’s garden, or a conflict over women…
According to the Law of Orders it is wrong to take a life. Seeking justice for a life taken is permissible,
even just according to the law, in order to prevent such violations from reoccurring. However such a life
style as the conditions that these tribes live under will ultimately violate all the Laws that have been
described. It follows than that there must exist a hierarchy in the order of Natural Laws with one
Primary Law governing all others, and a Secondary Law, and a Tertiary Law which will support the
established order and consequence.
By my own reasoning I have addressed each of the Laws in particular order because it seems to make
the most logical sense and are repeated in order from Primary to the last: Order, Progression, Exchange.
Consequence though named as one of the Natural Laws, does not fit into this organization because it
does not necessarily help us to distinguish right and wrong any further than what we can derive from
understanding the other three. Rather Consequence, in this case, serves as an end cape to each of the
three, as a principle understood to follow after each connection that can be made to the other Laws.
Taking into consideration this hierarchy of Primary Secondary and Tertiary Law, we can say that any
action that violates a lower law in order to support a higher law, that action is just and right, according
to ethical principles and Natural order. For instance, consider the moral dilemma, “A Father's Agonizing
Choice.”
11
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to
escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don't he will not only kill
your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don't have any doubt that he means what he says.
What should you do? (Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.) <http://www.friesian.com/valley/dilemmas.htm>
The problem with moral dilemmas is that they are highly structured scenarios designed to make a
person fail through lapsing on their predefined standards, usually by appeal to an emotional case. In
such cases that can be addressed it may be practical to classify such dilemmas under a different
category (For instance, rather than a moral dilemma, make it an emotional dilemma). We can do this
because when the emotional quality of the situation is removed the answer becomes clear. Changing
the scenario to state that instead of your son, it is another person you do not know, than the right
answer is to kill the one in order that two do not die. In this case there is no dilemma.
If we take this answer back to the original case, than to kill your son would be right. However by killing
your own son who you love very much you would be violating the Law of Progression in order to uphold
the Law of Order. This happens in that you have stopped your son’s progression and probably stunted
your own (This does not violate the law of Orders because you are not in control of the outcome.
Instead it is the guard who is violating the Primary Law, not you). Such an action, though right, would
leave many in great pain and sorrow, and leave them with haunting memories for the rest of their lives.
But I did not say that following natural laws would eliminate sorrow, only guilt, doubt, and despair. It is
probable that in most cases, while following the law brings greater happiness, sorrow may also follow.
Evidence to this notion may find greater clarity and significance when we consider Enoch’s conversation
with the Lord, when Enoch asked the Lord how he can weep, seeing as how HE is Holy (The Pearl of
Great Price, Moses. Ch 7: 29-37).
With a hierarchy such as this in place it is easy to solve any moral dilemma that comes our way. By
defaulting back always to what the Primary Laws standards are, we can make appropriate choices. But
other implications follow in such thinking. For one, how do we address situations that define two right
choices?
All that we have covered so far has had implications to right and wrong and the problems that come up
when distinguishing the two. As I have outlined, there is only ever one right choice in a situation and
that choice can be derived by reason with these Natural Laws and the hierarchy that exists between
them. By this understanding we can now reason that there is no such thing as a moral dilemma because
we have a formula which will always give the best and right answer to questions of moral choice. To
label a decision as a moral dilemma is thus inaccurate as there can never be a dilemma where true
understanding of moral principles exists.
If however we were to envision a moral dilemma I think a more accurate definition should be a scenario
posed that suggests two moral and just choices, one of which must be made. Which do you choose? It is
possible that life will throw at us situations where we have the opportunity to decide between a right
choice and another right choice. In this case one could say that there is no wrong answer in such a
scenario, but one choice may be better than another. One may also be much harder than the other; in
12
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
such a case a person will usually choose what they perceive as being best for them. But, do you make
the harder choice or stick with the easy answer. In such scenario’s it again is worth looking at the
hierarchy of Law. In the first place we used the hierarchy to determine what the right answer is by
looking at the Primary Law. Once you know what the right answer is, than in such cases where two right
choices can be made, you must work back down the list to consider the Secondary Law and the Tertiary
Law to find what answer is best. Consider the following…
A man comes to your house and tries to kill you. He is unsuccessful in his attempt and he seeks your
forgiveness, which you offer, and he goes his way. But the man returns at a later time to try the act
again, but he is unsuccessful once more and seeks your forgiveness, which you again offer. He returns a
third time in like manner and is unsuccessful in his attempt but you have had enough. Rather than allow
this man to continue trying to take your life you find yourself in a position to take his life. He has
attempted to violated the Primary Law on three occasion, rather than allow him to continue doing this
in the event that he might one day be successful, you reason that it is better to end the order of his life
than for him to end yours. According to the Law you would be justified. But do you do it?
This situation actually comes from the Law of Moses, which justifies a person in killing another when
that individual has threatened your life or that of your family on three occasions. “His life is delivered
into your hands.” As the Law states, but it also says that if you were to turn the person away and forgive
him again it will be counted unto you for righteousness.
It seems that even in right choices there is still sometimes a better choice to be made. In this situation it
would be permissible even necessary to defend yourself, according to the Primary Law (the Law of
Order). However such action would also violate the Secondary Law, by ending that individual’s
progression. But we have already stated that to violate a Secondary Law in order to uphold the Primary
law is an ethical and sometimes necessary act. However as we move on and consider the Tertiary Law
(The Law of Exchange) which will cause us to consider what the act does to us personally, we find our
answer. Spiritually, where the Law of Moses is concerned, the consequence of the exchange, (taking the
man’s life) may do you no harm but you would be denying yourself the extra reward for greater
righteousness. In a temporal sense we may consider how the exchange of taking another’s life affects
the person psychologically. Some lasting repercussions in the mind, such as post traumatic stress,
nightmares, even sorrow for the act, could hinder such a person’s development which would cause a
violation of the Tertiary Law (The Law of Exchange). It is neither permissible, nor logical for that manner,
to hinder one’s own progression. But all this could have been avoided to begin with by simply following
the Law and always defaulting back to the Primary, the Law of Order. With this the answer is clear. The
better choice would be not to kill the man but to forgive him and send him on his way. This however
does not mean that you do not take steps to prevent such an attack from being possible again in the
future. Such a person should also be made to serve jail time, which may in fact limit the amount of
progression that person would otherwise be able to make if they were not in prison. But to violate a
Secondary Law to uphold a Primary Law is right. In such a case the Tertiary Law is not violated because
what the punishment for this person does is prevent him from violating the Primary Law or Secondary
Law by extension in ending someone else’s Progression, and thus is just.
13
Ethics as Defined by Natural Law
Justifying our moral standards
Sometimes however the circumstances for these moral dilemmas are not so distinctively clear as in this
final example…
As recorded in the Book of Mormon, 12 disciples are selected from among the masses in 3 Nephi. Just
before Christ’s ascension back into heaven, he asks his disciples what they desire of him, and discerning
their thoughts tells three of the blessing they shall receive because of their desire to tarry on the earth
and continue the work of bringing souls to Christ. The other nine earlier stated how they desired to
finish the work they were assigned after living to the “age of man” and go speedily to Christ in his
kingdom, upon which, Christ, also pronounced that they were blessed. We cannot say that these nine
sinned at all in their desire, for they were told that they would have what they wished for. The three
also did not sin in their desire because a great blessing was pronounced upon them for their desire.
Neither choice was wrong, but one is suggested to have been greater in that Christ stated, “Therefore,
more blessed are ye…” (7) If neither choice is wrong, which would you choose?
There are many other parts to this that we might examine, and many more situations to try out to see
the conclusion but to do so would greatly extend the length of this discourse unnecessarily. All the
information that has been provided on this topic should suffice for anyone to be able to run their own
analysis and come to distinctive conclusions on their own. I encourage all to test this method against
their own scenarios and life events and see if you cannot come to the true moral choice each time.
14