Critique of idea of natural law

Natural Law is an expansion and rebuttal of a magazine article Robert Anton Wilson wrote for the New Libertarian Reader in 1985, in which he debated against the concept of a supposed "Natural Law" guiding the behavior of humans.

Robert Anton Wilson was a prolific author of the counterculture movement of the sixties onward, melding scientific method and rationalism with new age spiritualism and futuristic humanism. With this in mind, Natural Law is a great introduction to anyone who hasn't already found his work through The Illuminatus Trilogy.

In Natural Law, Wilson points out the fallacies of his detractors' arguments by slowly dismantling them through reason and logic, arguing not that he can prove them wrong, but rather that they are unable to prove themselves right. Wilson pays close attention to the phrases and concepts used in the debate, and how they are used to manipulate or hypnotize - and in some cases, self-hypnotize - their intended audience. He also examines the inconsistencies of other religious groups claiming their own origin story of "Natural Law" under the guise of secular spiritualism to support their own dogmatic belief systems. Want to know which religion is okay with buggering camels but not okay with buggering a brother-in-law? Wilson knows.

Catholicism - a common topic for Wilson, who lived in Ireland at one point - gets dragged into the debate due to it's perfect example of dogmatic rule and the involvement of Catholics in the Natural Law debate, so if you are a Catholic who is sensitive about criticisms about the Catholic Church, I still recommend reading this. Just relax a little.

Above all else, Wilson is self-deprecating and ultimately amused by the absurdity of human belief systems, and those of a like mind will enjoy his writings immensely. ( )

I first read this short book (68 pages) some 25 years ago, and re-reading it lately I remembered what great good fun RAW is—except for ideologues and anyone else who thinks they know The Answer.

Here he begins with a little giggle at Murray Rothbard’s expense, then launches into an essay in favor of pragmatic skepticism. Rothbard—an éminence grise of American libertarianism before he veered away from liberty into racist social conservatism—wrote in For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto that humans have a distinct nature that can be investigated by reason, and that this is the basis for Natural Law in the moral sense. “What moves men and women and changes history,” wrote Rothbard, “is ideology, moral values, deep beliefs and principles….moral passions and ideology work and pragmatism doesn’t.” To which Wilson replies, "Ideal Platonic Horseshit!"; ideologies serve to justify prejudice, nature is too complicated and too diverse for any moral generalizations to be drawn from it, and human morality, like art and science, is not a finished product, but is constantly evolving. That Rothbard would base his libertarianism on medieval theology (the source of Natural Law theory) strikes Wilson as ludicrous.

From the instrumental or scientific point of view, it makes no difference if the “essence” is said to be the blood and body of Christ, or the hide of the Easter Bunny, or the skeleton of The Dong With The Luminous Nose, or all three at once…

What Wilson is advocating is a way of being in the world—a pragmatic, individualistic, scientific attitude that is comfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The problem with Absolutists, Dogmatics, and Ideologists of all flavors is that they seek to abolish disagreement and in so doing to deny the human faculty for creative thought and autonomous, individual judgment. Those attracted to Natural Law theory (hello Murray!) seek an artificial stasis in an otherwise evolving and ever-changing universe, says Wilson. If libertarianism means anything, “it certainly should mean progress, not stasis; change, not medieval dogma; a liberation of energies, not a new cage.”

Wilson’s essay is a mash-up of Max Stirner, Jacob Bronowski, Niels Bohr, William Blake, Karl Popper, Zen koans and neuroscience, with much silliness, and what looks a lot like wisdom.