According to Kant, the categorical imperative is “what makes a will good is its conformity with the moral law”. His categorical imperative is a deontological ethical theory, which denotes the idea of existence
This ‘good’ is represented first and foremost by the moral virtue, which in its turn is presented through individual’s desire, action and goal and not by the uniqueness of the Face of Other. In Aristotle humanity becomes virtuous rationally by volition and willingness to act. As Aristotle puts
Influenced by Scotus’ formal distinctions of God in which different quiddities belong to the same subject, Spinoza transforms the propria from Descartes and Scotus to the concept of attributes. Attributes have irreducible formal reasons and expresses an infinite essence. They can be distinguished formally and they together constitute Substance in a purely qualitative sense. The Trinity of attribute-essence-substance, which is formally distinct, ontologically identical, in a nutshell, reflects that Spinoza does not reject the general definition of substance; on the contrary, he insists upon its rigid application: substance expresses itself, attributes are its expressions and through
Natural law theory states that there are laws that are immanent in nature and the man made laws should correspond as closely as possible. Man can’t produce natural laws but he can find and discover through his reasoning. If a law is contrary to a natural law then it is not a law. Laws should be related to morality. It is a concept of a body of moral principal that is same for all the man and it can only be find through human reasoning alone.
Indeed in Plato’s ideal republic the state’ laws are replaced by the “philosopher king’s” law. These philosopher kings were to be trained and would do so through rationally perceived dictates of ultimate virtue. They would cease to be encumbered by the various legal forms but instead become characterised by wisdom and be accepted through its very excellence. The closest Plato nears to the concept of natural law theory is in the Republic whereby he analogises health, as the natural order of the body, and justice as the natural order of things within the state, and in his discussion of the formal idea of justice as “just by nature” and finally in Laws, in which the Athenian Stranger, discussing how one would establish a state in which laws have a greater power than the rulers, proposes to speak about divine law which would supply the need for a governing higher
Human is born with the natural ability of reasoning whether or not it is a gracious gift from God as claimed. According to natural law, human is capable of deciding whether an action is morally right or wrong. We do not create what is evil and good, rather, we discover what is right or wrong. Besides, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning capability to discern what the laws are and subsequently acting in conformity with them. Therefore, there is no reason why divine law must be superior than man-made law when human is just as effective and arguably, even more effective.
Thus the law “you will not stand on the blood of your neighbor” is valid because it protects the natural right that an individual has to life. On the other hand Aquinas believes that the validity of a law is rooted in the divine principles that underlie the law. Natural law consist of an ethical aspect, which are the moral principles only known to God as well as a legal component which is the expression of these moral principles within the human legal system . According to Aristotle these moral principles, which exist on the eternal level of law, are the basis of the laws that are created on the human level. In the adoption case Justice Dornor asked whether a person enjoys the fruit of a forbidden act in order to illustrate the moral principles underlying our laws .
Natural law maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural law is based on what’s “correct” and is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Where man exercises his reason correctly he will understand what will result in better ends. In fact, the interpretation of natural law varies from one theorist to another. According to Kelsen (1881-1973), laws and systems of government supposedly all derived from natural law vary from place to place and age to age, there being no unanimity between philosophers as to the conclusions to be deducted from natural law.
Firstly, Greeks located the concept of the rule of law. Jurist Aristotle made a difference between procedural justice and moral justice and wrote that “law should be the final sovereign”. James M. Buchanan distinguishes between “law” and the “rule of law”. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine argued that rule of law represents the natural order of God as ascertained through divine inspiration and human resource. In the medieval, the English jurist Edward Coke asserted that king must be under God and law.
Natural justice operates on the principles that man is basically good and therefore a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would like to be treated. Natural Justice imposes a code of fair procedure, including the right to be given a fair hearing and the opportunity to present one’s case, the right to have a decision made by an unbiased or disinterested decisionmaker and the right to have that decision based on logically probative evidence. Natural justice in essence could just be referred to as Procedural Fairness, with a purpose of ensuring that decision-making is fair and reasonable. The principles of Natural Justice are a part of the legal and judicial procedures and it comprises of two concepts, namely (a) Audi alterampartem, or the right to fair hearing (b) Nemojudex in suacausa, or the no man can be a judge in his own