Natural Law What is beyond?

Who is he? Sapere Aude (Dare to be wise, dare to know) Born in 1724 in Konigsberg, Prusia (Kaliningrad) German philosopher “It always remains a scandal of philosophy and universal human reason that the existence of things outside us... should have to be assumed merely on faith, and that if it occurs to anyone to doubt it, we should be unable to answer him with a satisfactory proof.” Then he Proposed: “Up to now it has been assumed that all our cognition must conform to the objects; but... let us once try whether we do not get farther with the problems of metaphysics by assuming that the objects must conform to our cognition”. Hans Kelsen is inspired by this Philosopher.

The Three Postulates FREEDOM – GOD - IMMORTALITY There are incorporated into coherent and meaningful ethical structure. A postulate is “a theoretical propositions which is not as such demonstrable but which is an inseparable corollary of an apriori unconditionally valid practical law.” The postulate becomes part of the Kant’s ethical structure but he makes it clear that the postulates play no theoretical or explanatory role.

Postulates As we have no intuitions to apply the concepts of freedom, God and immortality; no theoretical knowledge is possible. Kant makes it clear, “A postulate of practical reason is an object of rational belief, but the reasons for the belief are practical and moral. Person needs the belief as a condition for obedience to the moral law.”

Explanation Freedom, God and Immortality: are not theoretical dogmas  presuppositions: for practical reference. The postulate can be considered as an attempt to limit the theoretical and extend the practical so as to make them stand together. God as postulate by Kant is not the God of religion. It has origin in one’s own reason which would necessarily mean that submitting to will of God is submitting to one’s own reason. The need of God arises because the relationship between moral law and happiness is not guaranteed in this world. So here God comes to the rescue and thus necessitates the compatibility of virtue and realization of highest good, according Kant.

Explanation Immortality is very much related with God. For Kant it is very difficult for a man to be righteous without hope. Immortality guarantees this hope and ensures that there is a place sufficient for the reckoning of happiness in proportion to worthiness to be happy. Freedom (Autonomy) is given a special position among the other two postulates. It becomes the condition of of the moral law which we do know. It is because of freedom that God and Immortality gain objective reality and legitimacy and subjective necessity. Freedom (Autonomy) then can be considered as the keystone of the structure of pure reason.

Its Relevance with Natural Law The assumption of natural law: Universality and Eternality System of thinking : transcendentalist There is another world consists of absolute entity that determines the world of everyday life. Secular approach (rationality) and theological approach (God as supreme and almighty entity). Natural Law’s perspective is transcendentalist in nature because it believes the existence of what is behind the appearance.

Conversation between two old friends Do you believe that there is life after this life? No, I do not believe it. But for what reason you will do good in your life? Don’t you expect reward? No. So what makes you do good? Happiness. I do good because I am happy to do that. Isn’t that (happiness) a reward? No. That is a consequence of what I’ve done. If you speak about reward then there would be “something” that gives me such reward and in contrary a punishment if I do bad. So it is meaningless if I will relate reward with the life afterlife or heaven as reward of your good behavior and attitude.

Questions Do people always need reward for doing good? If we make further reflection on “goodness”, does goodness always anchor its existence in the hope for reward in the future, especially good reward in the afterlife? Isn’t that good is enough for good itself? If we take a look on law. Do you see that the logic of law quite the same with such kind of logic? – reward and punishment logic. Is it really necessary for applying such logic in law so people will obey the law? What about common good? Do we need such logic for achieving common good?