Socially Constituted and Socially Defined Law.
An argument against the idea of Natural Law.
The idea of natural law has been long debated in the subject of jurisprudence. There are theorists that contend that there is a natural law by which everyone must abide in order to thrive in the world. Other theorists do not believe this true. They believe that law is socially defined and socially agreed upon; therefore natural law does not exist. The idea of natural law is a fallacy because a law is a contract made between people, not merely an innate understanding of right from wrong.
Natural law theorists such as Cicero and Saint Thomas Aquinas will argue that there is a common law that can be applied universally that never changes, and is everlasting in the world. They believe that all people are subject to follow these natural laws because they come from a divine source. .
Laws are not followed or understood unless they are enforced. As Thomas Hobbes is famously quoted for saying, "Life is lonely, poor, nasty, brutish and short." He is right. Without a contracted, written understanding of law and its consequences, there is no reason for people to follow rules or be civil. Hobbes contends that humans are out for their own self-interests. If not restricted by laws of the sovereign, people will get whatever they want and get it however they want.
Let's take Hobbes" positivist view as an example. In the state of nature, which is the world without laws, edicts and rules to follow, there is much disorder and disarray. There are no laws to follow; there is no right from wrong, so people do what it is that they want. Hobbes proposes that to get out of the state of nature people must form a covenant. In this covenant a sovereign must be appointed. The sovereign is that person who makes the laws. The sovereign is that person who decides right from wrong, and just from unjust. In the state of nature, people don't have ideas of justice and injustice because laws define justice and injustice.