ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

PROJECT WORK – LEGAL THEORY – II

NATURAL SCHOOL LAW AND IMMANUEL KANT: A CRITIQUE

Submitted by – Divya Rashmi

Section – A

Roll no – 20BALLB046

Enroll no - GM4746

Semester – VI

SUBMITTED TO – DR. YAWAR

1
Index
1. INTRODUCTION
2. NATURAL SCHOOL OF LAW: A BREIF OVERVIEW
3. SUBJECTIVITY, RELATIVISM AND METAPHYSICS IN NATURAL LAW
TRADITION
4. GENDER AND NATURAL SCHOOL OF JURISPRUDENCE
5. IMMANUEL KANT : A BIOGRAPHY
6. IMMANUEL KANT AND THE NATURAL LAW TRADITION: ON NATURE OF
MORALITY, INDIVIUAL RUGHTS AND JUSTICE
7. KANT’S CRITIQUE OF the NATURAL SCHOOL OF JURISPRUDENCE :
SOURCE OF MORALITY, ROLE OF GOD AND USE OF FORCE
8. LENIN’S CRITIQUE OF KANT : IDEALISM, INDIVIUALISM AND ABSTRACT
MORALITY IN KANTS THEORY IF JUSTICE AND LAW
9. CONCLUSION

2
Introduction

The natural school law school often referred to as philosophical school has its origin in
ancient Greek philosophy in the works of Aristotle and Plato. The ancient natural school
believed that there was an inherent order in the universe and that human beings could use
reason to understand this order.
In the middle ages the natural law school was further developed by theologian thinkers such
as Thomas Aquinas, who proposed that secular law should reconcile with the divine law.
During the period of enlightenment the natural law school was further developed by
thinkers and it was a radical break from the early conceptions. The scholars post the
enlightenment period does radically depart from the natural law tradition on three aspect
on definition of natural law, understanding of human rationality, divine Providence and
religion. It’s actually a departure from Christian morality.
In order to show kant’s departure from the natural law tradition, he is compared to the
traditional natural law writer St. Thomas Aquinas. After briefly discussing the tradition of
natural law, the following paragraphs focus on how the post , enlightenment views differ
from the former; concerning (a) man’s ultimate goals and that human nature strives to do
good, (b) the definition of natural law and the understanding of human rationality and (c)
the meaning of divine providence and religion
We take for example saint Thomas and Kant. Aquinas offers a good example of the
traditional model of natural law theory. By common consent he is seen as the most
influential moral philosopher of the natural law tradition. Thomas Aquinas based his theory
on theology dedicated to the moral supremacy of the Catholic Church. Aquinas explain the
Christian faith. Faith and reason are interconnected throughout his philosophical system
and his underlying assumptions of his theory of natural law include human being’s use of
practical rationality through divine providence. The fundamental principle of the natural law
tradition is that good is to be done and evil is to be avoided. Human nature strives towards
doing good, as well as towards a natural end, which is happiness in life with the ultimate
goal of the vision of God after death “man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness…
directed to his end by a law given by God.”
This essay aims to explore the rutted relationship between the Natural School of Law and
the German idealist philosopher Immanuel Kant, and further a critique of conception of
natural school and Kant. 1

Natural Schools of Law: A Brief Overview from Ancient to Medieval to

Modern Period

1
William P Baugmarth & Richard J Regan, Law and morality, p74, Hacker publishing company, (2002)
Quentin Skinner, From humanism to Hobbes, p 125,Cambridge University press, (2008)

3
The natural school of law is a legal philosophy that posits the existence of a set of universal
moral principles that are inherent in human nature and can serve as the basis for law and
society. This school of thought has existed throughout history and has been influential in
various periods, including ancient, medieval, and modern times.

Ancient period
In the ancient period, the natural school of law can be traced back to the Greek
philosophers, particularly Aristotle, who believed that natural law is based on human reason
and is applicable to all societies. There was no political stability in ancient Greece which
made jurists think to develop new universal principals that would tackle and control the
arbitrariness and tyranny. The natural law was understood as “being co – existent with
mankind and emanating from God Himself, is superior to all other laws. It is binding over all
the countries at all countries at all the times and no man – made law will be valid if it is
contrary to the law of nature.” Yet another philosopher of the natural law tradition believed
in morality to be higher than law as morality is inculcated by human insight. The same view
were further substantiated by Plato that God gave all men equal sense of insight and justice.
The ancient Romans had a very advanced formulation of the natural law theory, which
helped build them a cosmopolitan state. They had three divisions of law that is jus civile or
civil law which was applicable to Roman citizens. Jus gentium, the law which was applicable
on foreigners, These laws contained universal and justice. And jus naturale was the law fixed
by nature, immutable and above to all human laws discovered by right reasons. There was
unanimity among Roman jurists that whenever any contradiction arose between Natural
law and Positive law, former would prevail.

Mediaeval period
In the medieval period, the natural school of law was developed further by Christian
theologians, who believed that natural law was created by God and was therefore superior
to man-made laws. The theological and philosophical ideas of catholic church Inspired by
the speculative thoughts had an influence over the natural law in the mediaeval period.
Most of the theorist of the mediaeval period were Christian theologians. Saint Augustine
and Saint Thomas Aquinas were among the most influential medieval thinkers in the natural
law tradition. Aquinas argued that natural law is based on reason and is discernible by
human beings through their ability to reason. He believed that natural law is universal and
unchanging and that it is the basis for all human law. The mediaeval period is also called the
dark age as it was marked by superimposition of church on the philosophy of natural law.
The idea of sin based on a violation of moral precepts mentioned in the Scriptures. So,for
instance, St. Augustine argued that human institutions become necessary only when men
fail to adhere to Christian values and therefore, human institutions like government, slavery,
property, etc. are nothing but a product of sin. Philosophers during this period also
advocated that human institutions can never become good but it is the task of the Church to
ensure that2 human laws are tested, verified and adjusted to eternal Christian
principles.Through the above argument, an attempt was made to logically establish the
2
Trishla Singh, Naturalism and positivism, journal of law and humanities, Volume 4, Issue 2, Page 139 - 243

4
conclusion that The Church must exercise supremacy over the State to ensure that human
institutions remain noble.
According to Aquinas, Natural Law is the voice of Reason in man which dictates him to
distinguish between good and evil. To the question of determination of good and evil,
Aquinas was of the opinion that everything that man was naturally inclined to do was good
and the converse of it was evil.The former constitutes Natural Law. So, instincts of self-
preservation, attraction towards the opposite sex, desire to marry and create a family and
lead a social life come naturally to human beings and therefore, constitute a part of natural
law.
A primary philosophical debate which surfaced in the Medieval Era was on the question of
universal principles. There were two main schools of thought which adopted two different
approaches towards the solution and hence, the debate. These two schools were the
realists and the Nominalists. According to the Realists, the world of our thought and the
world of external reality are parallel to each other. Human beings frame mental
representations of the external objects and phenomena, which exist in the real world. These
mental representations are reflections of the real world and human beings are capable of
framing them because they are endowed with Reason. Therefore, Realists believed that
human beings are capable of ‘knowing’ the world as it is because they have been bestowed
with that capacity by God. So, concepts like virtue, truth, justice and humanity are universal
and principles, non-negotiable in their nature because they exist in the external real world
and the human mind, being aware of their existence is capable of framing their mental
representations. So, Realists argued that the aforementioned concepts are real, not illusory.
On the other hand, Nominalists like Duns Scotus and William of Occam argued that the so-
called universal principles are unreal. According to them, the only real things that exist in
the world are those that we can perceive through our senses to exist or those that we get to
know through our observation. According to them, everything else is only a mirage.
Logically, therefore, the ‘generalisations and classifications’ that we use to describe the real
world are mere names. They cannot be real simply because they cannot be perceived or
observed like other objects. Therefore, abstract principles cannot be taken as universals
because they are beyond the scope of human perception. Thus, they concluded that
universal principles are unreal entities.

Post enlightenment period

However, the natural school of law underwent a revival during the modern period i.e.
during the 16th and 17th centuries when it emerged in response to authoritarianism. The
Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, rejected the idea
that the authority of the state was derived from divine right and instead argued that it was
based on natural law. They believed that natural law was a universal set of moral principles
that could be discovered through human reason and that it was the foundation of individual
rights and freedoms. Building upon the works of ancient Greek philosophers, medieval
Christian theologians and legal theory the proponents of the natural school of the law

5
believed that there were certain moral principles that were inherent in human nature and
that these principles should serve as the foundation for the law.
According to natural law school, the law should be based on reason and the natural order of
the world, rather than on the arbitrary whims of those in power. They argued that the
ultimate aim of the law should be to promote the common good and to ensure that
individuals are able to exercise their natural rights and fulfil their natural duties. The natural
lawyers believed that there were certain universal principles of justice and morality that
were accessible to human reason and that these principles should be the basis for all legal
and political institutions. One of the central concepts of the natural school of law is the idea
of natural rights, which are rights that are inherent in human beings and that cannot be
taken away by any government or authority. The proponents of the natural school believed
that these rights included the right to life, liberty, and property, as well as the right to
participate in government and to enjoy freedom of speech and religion. This school of law
also emphasized the idea of natural duties, which are obligations that individuals have to
themselves and to others based on their nature as rational and moral beings. These duties
included the duty to respect the rights of others, to promote the common good, and to fulfil
one's potential as a human being.
LIMITATION OF NATURAL SCHOOL OF JURISPRUDENCE
Critical legal studies scholars argue that the natural law tradition is based on subjective and
culturally contingent moral beliefs. This means that natural law principles are not universal
or objective, but are instead shaped by the particular social, cultural, and historical context
in which they are developed. As a result, natural law interpretations are open to
interpretation and manipulation, and can be used to justify almost any policy choice or legal
decision.
For example, proponents of natural law may argue that human beings have an inherent
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as codified in the United States
Declaration of Independence. However, critical scholars would be quick to point out that
this principle has been used to justify many types of oppressive practices, ranging from
slavery and colonialism to the denial of civil rights and the use of state violence against
marginalized groups.
Similarly, critical legal studies scholars argue that natural law principles often serve to
protect and reinforce existing power structures, rather than challenging them. For example,
proponents of natural law might argue that certain social hierarchies and inequalities are
natural and inevitable, rather than contingent upon specific historical and cultural factors.
This can lead to the perpetuation of injustices and the suppression of dissenting voices,
rather than fostering a more equitable and just society.
Finally, critical legal studies scholars challenge the essentialist assumptions of natural law.
They argue that the natural law tradition is based on an overly simplistic and limited
understanding of human nature and morality, which fails to account for the diversity and
complexity of human experience. This can lead to a narrow and incomplete understanding
of law and society, which may ignore important social, cultural, and historical factors that

6
shape legal systems and social norms. As a result, critical scholars argue that the natural law
tradition needs to be critically re-evaluated and reconstructed in order to better reflect the
realities of contemporary
Further the natural school of law has been criticised for relying on ahistorical and abstract
notion of justice and for its subjectivity, Relativism and metaphysics
Subjectivity: Natural law theory tends to rely on an objective view of morality, which
assumes that moral principle are independent of individual perspective and experiences.
However, this objective view can be criticised for failing to account for the ways in which
individual experiences and perspective shape our understanding of what is morally right or
wrong. It overlooks the complexity of individual subjectivity
Relativism: The natural school of law believed that natural law and morality were universal
principles that applied to all societies and cultures. However, the natural school does not
recognize that different societies and cultures might have different interpretations of
natural law and morality, based on their historical, cultural, and social contexts. This
relativism in the interpretation of natural law and morality could lead to differences in legal
systems and legal outcomes across different societies and cultures, even if the underlying
principles of natural law and morality were believed to be universal.
Metaphysics: The natural school of law believed in the existence of a natural order and a
natural law that governed human behaviour. They believed that the natural law was based
on metaphysical principles that were discoverable through reason and reflection. However,
the metaphysical nature of natural law and morality made it difficult to determine the exact
content of these principles. The natural school of law believed that the principles of natural
law and morality were self-evident and did not require empirical verification. This reliance
on metaphysical principles could lead to disagreements about the content of natural law
and morality and their application in specific cases.

Immanuel Kant: A Brief Biography

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher and one of the most influential
figures in modern Western philosophy. He was born in Prussia and spent his entire life there
as a professor of philosophy. Kant is known for his critical philosophy, which sought to
reconcile the rationalist and empiricist traditions in philosophy and to provide a foundation
for objective knowledge and morality. His major works include “Critique of Pure Reason,”
“Critique of Practical Reason,” and “Critique of Judgment,” as well as numerous essays and
lectures. In his philosophy, Kant emphasized the importance of reason and argued that all
knowledge must be based on a priori principles that are independent of experience. He also
developed the concept of the “categorical imperative,” a moral principle that requires
actions to be undertaken as if they were universal laws that all rational beings must follow.
Kant's ideas have had a profound impact on philosophy, as well as on other fields such as
ethics, political theory, and aesthetics. His influence can be seen in the work of many later
philosophers, including Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Let us discuss Kant’s idea on
certain key concepts that are important for jurisprudence.

7
Kant on the nature of morality
According to Immanuel Kant, morality is based on rationality and the inherent dignity of all
human beings. He believed that moral actions are those that are performed out of a sense
of duty, rather than for personal gain or pleasure. In other words, actions are only truly
moral if they are done because it is the right thing to do, not because they will bring about
some other desired outcome. Kant's moral philosophy centres around his concept of the
"categorical imperative," which he believed was the ultimate principle of morality. The
categorical imperative is a moral principle that requires actions to be undertaken as if they
were universal laws that all rational beings must follow. This means that we should only act
in ways that we would want everyone else to act in the same situation, regardless of our
own personal desires or interests. Kant believed that the categorical imperative was based
on reason and that it could be used to derive moral laws that apply universally to all rational
beings. He argued that moral actions must be performed out of a sense of duty and that the
moral worth of an action depends on the motive behind it, rather than the outcome. Kant's
view on the nature of morality has had a profound impact on ethical theory, particularly in
the area of deontological ethics, which emphasizes the importance of following moral rules
and duties regardless of the consequences. His ideas have also been influential in
discussions of human rights and the inherent dignity of all individuals.
Kant of individual rights
Based on his idea of “Categorical Imperative” Kant believed that all human beings have
inherent dignity and worth, which must be respected and protected. He argued that this
inherent worth is derived from our rational nature and that it gives us a special status in the
world. As such, Kant believed that individuals have certain fundamental rights that must be
respected by others and protected by the state. Kant's view on individual rights can be seen
in his political philosophy, which emphasized the importance of individual autonomy and
freedom. He believed that individuals have a right to be treated as ends in themselves,
rather than as means to an end, and that this requires the recognition and protection of
individual rights. Kant believed that individual rights include the right to freedom of thought
and expression, the right to property, the right to self-determination, and the right to
participate in government. He argued that these rights are essential for the protection of
individual autonomy and for the creation of a just society. Kant also believed that the state
has a duty to protect individual rights and that this duty is grounded in the social contract
between individuals and the state. He argued that the state has a monopoly on the use of
force and that this gives it the power and responsibility to protect individual rights from
infringement by others.
Kant on justice and fairness
Kant believed that justice and fairness are essential components of a moral society. He
argued that justice requires treating people equally and that fairness requires treating
people according to their individual merit and worth. Kant believed that justice and fairness
are essential for creating a society in which individuals can pursue their own goals and
happiness, while also respecting the rights and dignity of others. Kant's view on justice and

8
fairness is closely related to his concept of the "categorical imperative," which requires that
moral actions be performed as if they were universal laws that all rational beings must
follow. This means that justice and fairness must be applied universally to all individuals,
without exception.
Kant believed that justice and fairness require treating individuals equally, regardless of
their social status or personal characteristics. He argued that individuals should be judged
based on their actions and abilities, rather than their social status or personal
characteristics. This means that justice and fairness require treating all individuals with
respect and dignity and providing them with equal opportunities to succeed. Kant also
believed that justice and fairness require individuals to act with honesty and integrity and to
respect the rights and dignity of others. He argued that individuals have a duty to treat
others as they would like to be treated themselves and that this requires acting with
kindness, compassion, and respect.

Kant’s Critique of the Natural School of Jurisprudence

Immanuel Kant was critical of the natural law tradition in some respects, which can be
broadly described on three grounds. Firstly, he argued that the natural school of law relied
too heavily on metaphysical and speculative reasoning, without providing a solid empirical
foundation for its claims. According to Kant, the proponents of natural school tended to
make sweeping claims about the nature of the law and morality, without sufficient attention
to the complexities of human experience and the diversity of moral perspectives. Secondly,
Kant criticized the natural school of law for assuming that moral principles could be
discovered through intuition or introspection, without any regard for empirical observation
or experience. He argued that the natural school tended to rely on a priori reasoning, rather
than empirical observation and experience and that this led them to overlook the
importance of context and cultural variation in shaping moral values and legal norms.
Thirdly, Kant objected to the natural school of law's emphasis on innate moral principles
that were discernible through reason and intuition. He argued that this approach tended to
be overly abstract and disconnected from the realities of human experience and that it
failed to take account of the contingent and historical nature of legal and moral norms.
Further, Kant's critique of the natural school of jurisprudence can be summarized in three
main points: his disagreement with their source of morality, their reliance on God, and their
acceptance of the use of force in law and politics. Let us look at them one by one.
Source of morality: Kant believed that the natural school of jurisprudence was flawed in its
understanding of the source of morality. The natural school of jurisprudence believed that
morality was derived from natural law and the principles of reason, which were seen as
universal and applicable to all societies. However, Kant argued that morality was not derived
from natural law or reason alone, but rather from the categorical imperative, a universal
principle of practical reason that dictates moral action. Kant believed that the natural school
of jurisprudence's focus on natural law was insufficient because it failed to account for the
complex moral dilemmas that arise in society. He argued that the categorical imperative

9
provided a more nuanced and comprehensive framework for understanding moral
behaviour.
Role of God: The natural school of jurisprudence believed that God played a central role in
the establishment and maintenance of natural law and morality. They believed that God
was the ultimate authority and source of moral authority. Kant, on the other hand, rejected
the idea that God played a direct role in moral decision-making. Kant believed that morality
was grounded in reason and that it was possible for individuals to use their own rationality
to determine what is right and wrong. He rejected the idea that God was necessary for
moral guidance or that religious authority should be used to establish moral norms.
Use of force: The natural school of jurisprudence believed that the use of force was
necessary for maintaining social order and upholding the law. They argued that the use of
force was justified in cases where individuals violated natural law or acted against the
common good. Kant, however, rejected the use of force in law and politics, believing that it
undermined the fundamental principles of justice and equality. Kant believed that the state
had a duty to protect individual rights and that the use of force was only justified in cases of
self-defence or the defence of others. He argued that the use of force should be restricted
and used only as a last resort.
Let us now discuss the critique or Kant’s concept of law and justice as provided by the
Marxist philosopher Vladimir Lenin in his famous work Materialism and Empirio-criticism.

Lenin’s Critique of Kant

Lenin's critique of Kant can be understood within the broader context of Marxist philosophy,
which emphasized the importance of material conditions and class struggle in shaping social
and political relations. Lenin's critique of Kant can be summarized under three headings
namely, Kant’s idealism, individualism and abstract morality.
“Kant the founder of modern German idealism, was a brilliant representative of the
bourgeoisie, which was then in the ascendant. His teaching, the subjective idealist teaching
that the substance of the world was the “I think” opened up a new ear in philosophy. But
this ear proved to be a new era of reactionary and decadent bourgeoisie, an era of
intellectual reaction, and of a consolidation of all that was retrograde in philosophy”
Idealism in Kant: Lenin believed that Kant's philosophy was idealistic because it emphasized
the importance of individual morality and reason, without considering the social and
economic conditions that shape human behavior. Kant's emphasis on individual morality
and reason reflected the bourgeois worldview, which emphasized individualism,
competition, and the pursuit of self-interest. Lenin argued that Kant's idealism ignored the
role of social and economic structures in shaping human behaviour. He believed that a more
materialist approach was necessary for understanding the complex social and political
problems facing society. Materialism, in this context, refers to the idea that material
conditions and economic factors are the primary forces that shape human behaviour.
Individualism in Kant: Lenin also criticized Kant's philosophy for its individualistic
perspective on freedom. According to Lenin, Kant's concept of freedom was too narrow and
10
did not recognize the importance of social and economic conditions in shaping human
behaviour. Kant believed that freedom was the ability to act according to one's own will,
without interference from external forces. Lenin argued that true freedom could only be
achieved through collective action and the establishment of socialist structures that would
eliminate exploitation and oppression. He believed that Kant's individualistic concept of
freedom3 ignored the fact that social and economic conditions create unequal power
relationships, which limit the ability of individuals to act according to their own will.
Abstract morality: In addition to Lenin's critiques of Kant's idealism and individualism, he also
criticized Kant's abstract morality. Lenin argued that Kant's moral philosophy was too
abstract and disconnected from the realities of social and economic life. He believed that
Kant's focus on individual moral duty and the categorical imperative did not provide a
concrete analysis of material conditions or a framework for understanding the dynamics of
class struggle. Lenin believed that morality and ethics were essential for developing a
revolutionary consciousness and motivating individuals to engage in collective action.
However, he argued that Kant's abstract morality was not useful in this regard. Lenin
believed that revolutionary morality must be grounded in the concrete realities of social and
economic life, and must be relevant to the needs and struggles of the working class.
Furthermore, Lenin believed that Kant's abstract morality was disconnected from politics.
He argued that morality and politics are inseparable and that morality must be used to
guide political action. According to Lenin, revolutionary morality should be based on a
Marxist analysis of class struggle and the material conditions of society and should be used
to guide the development of revolutionary theory and practice.

CONCLUSION
The Core of the theory of natural law is the idea that everything that exists has a “nature”
that gives everything that exists a purpose in life, and all this nature is somehow connected,
so that everything that exists is somehow connected to other existing things. Specifically, for
humans, the theory of natural law adds the idea that the human mind is able to identify the
way of life that makes man live according to its nature. In essence, it is said that if a man
uses his mind, he will find the natural way of life, and then if he leads his life according to his
nature, he will fulfill the purpose and purpose of his life; Therefore, you experience
happiness in life.
So, what the theory of natural law effectively says is that the human mind can find the
purpose that gave the creator of life simply by looking at the natural tendencies of creation.
This idea clearly assumes that the satisfaction of the natural tendencies of creation is the
purpose for which the Creator created existence. What is the evidence for this? In the
absence of disclosure, there is none. The assumption “Because people have natural
tendencies, their purpose in life must be to live up to these tendencies” is purely
speculative. You can also imagine that the Creator saw the natural tendencies of creation as
a test of creation, that the Creator really wants man to abstain from. This, in turn, means
that the theory of natural law cannot convince the mind because it lacks a rational
3
Lenin, Materialism and empirio-criticism,critique of kant from left to right p 23 international publishers
(2007)

11
argument based on these assumptions.So, the truth is that if you accept the existence of a
creator as a fact, you must accept as a fact that only the creator knows for sure what he
meant by his creation. That only He knows with certainty how His creation should continue
in his life. Without revelation, as in the information flowing from the creator to the creation,
creation can only speculate about all this. The theory of natural law is not consistent
internally because its conclusion does not match implicit assumptions.

12
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Wayne Morrison, Jurisprudence from Greeks to post modernism,

Routledge, 1997

Paton. H.J, The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant‟s Moral

Philosophy,Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Press; 1947.

Lenin, Materialism and empirio- criticism, international publishers,

2007

13