For many years I have struggled with finding the words to express my instinctive feelings against attempts to apply “universal” principles across all humans and which suppress human individuality. I have often tried – usually without much success – to explain my dislike for concepts such as universal morality, Natural law, universal rights, unearned rights as entitlements and entitlements independent of behaviour. I am coming to the conclusion that my objections to, and dislike of, these concepts are essentially philosophical. Explanations of my objections need, I think, to be couched in philosophical terms.
I try to address these (again) in this series of essays.
Natural Law is often presented as a foundational principle governing human morality, law, and rights, claiming to be a universal standard of justice inherent in human nature. However, a closer examination reveals that Natural Law is not an empirical reality but a constructed ideological tool. It emerges only when different societies with distinct laws interact, and its purpose has historically been to justify the imposition of one society’s norms over another. The absence of empirical evidence for Natural Law, combined with its theological underpinnings and political motivations, renders it an unconvincing framework for understanding human morality and governance. Instead, morality is best understood as an emergent property of individual human values, varying across cultures, historical periods, and personal experiences. Here I try to explore the philosophical, historical, and empirical reasons why Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept and why morality must be recognized as subjective rather than universal.
The Absence of Empirical Evidence for Natural Law
If Natural Law were a genuine feature of human existence, we would expect to observe universal moral principles across all societies and cultures. However, anthropological and historical research reveals no such universality. While there are commonalities in human behavior – such as cooperation and conflict resolution – these vary significantly in their expression. For example, concepts of justice, property, and individual rights differ widely between societies. The idea that certain rights are inherent to all human beings is not supported by empirical observation but rather by ideological assertions.
Human history is filled with examples of societies that have organized themselves around vastly different moral and legal systems. From the caste-based hierarchy of ancient India to the communal property arrangements of indigenous tribes, moral codes are deeply context-dependent. Even within the same society, moral norms evolve over time, reflecting changes in economic conditions, technological advancements, and cultural shifts. This variability directly contradicts the claim that a singular, natural moral order governs human behavior.
The lack of empirical confirmation for Natural Law relegates it to the realm of metaphysical speculation. If Natural Law cannot be observed or tested, then it is indistinguishable from theological doctrine. It becomes a belief system rather than a demonstrable reality, making it no different from religious faith. This reliance on unprovable assertions undermines its credibility as a foundation for legal or moral theory.
Natural Law as a Tool of Domination
Natural Law does not emerge in isolated societies but only when different societies with conflicting rules interact. Historically, it has been invoked to justify the imposition of one society’s rules over another, often under the guise of a higher moral authority. Colonialism, religious expansion, and political domination have frequently relied on claims of Natural Law to legitimize conquest and control.
For instance, European colonial powers used the rhetoric of Natural Law to justify the subjugation of indigenous populations. They framed their legal and moral systems as “civilized” and based on universal principles, while dismissing native customs as inferior or unnatural. This ideological framework provided moral cover for coercion, exploitation, and cultural erasure. Of course religious institutions across the world have been quick to confer the halo of Natural Law on their own dogma. Religious institutions from have often used Natural Law arguments to enforce moral conformity, punishing deviations from dogmatic norms under the pretense of upholding their universal truths.
Natural Law’s historical role as an instrument of domination raises serious ethical concerns. If its primary function has been to serve the interests of those in power, then its legitimacy as a moral guide is highly suspect. Rather than being an impartial standard of justice, it appears to be a rhetorical device used to consolidate control over others.
The Fallacy of Universal Morality
The assumption that a universal morality exists contradicts the reality of human individuality. Every human being is genetically unique, behaves in distinct ways, and forms personal values based on their own experiences. Given this diversity, it is absurd to claim that a single moral code applies equally to all people. What is “good” for one person may be harmful or undesirable for another. What is “good” for me here and now is certain to be “bad” for some one of the other 8 billion people alive.
The idea of universal morality is, at best, an abstraction with no real-world grounding. At worst, it is an imbecilic construct used to justify coercion. The imposition of a supposedly universal moral order disregards the fact that morality is fundamentally a product of individual cognition. Each person’s moral framework emerges from their subjective values, which they use to navigate life’s complexities. The attempt to enforce a single moral standard on diverse populations is not only impractical but also a form of ideological tyranny.
Furthermore, moral codes are often shaped by historical circumstances rather than any intrinsic natural order. Concepts of justice, equality, and rights have changed dramatically over time, reflecting societal needs rather than adherence to some eternal truth. Slavery was once considered morally acceptable in many civilizations, and its eventual abolition was not the result of a discovery of Natural Law but of shifting economic and political forces. The same can be said for religious freedoms or freedom of expression and numerous other moral issues. This historical fluidity further undermines the idea that moral principles are fixed or inherent.
The Political Function of Universal Morality
If morality is not universal but instead emerges from subjective values, why does the myth of Natural Law persist? The answer lies in its political utility. The concept of a universal moral order provides a convenient justification for those in power to enforce their will on others. By claiming that certain moral rules are “self-evident” or “natural,” political and religious leaders can sidestep debate and impose their norms without question.
Universal morality is, in effect, a political construct. It serves as a tool for suppressing dissent and legitimizing authority. Governments, religious institutions, and international bodies all invoke the language of universal morality to assert control over populations. For example, international human rights laws claim to be based on fundamental moral principles, yet they often reflect the political interests of dominant nations. The selective enforcement of these laws—where powerful countries violate them with impunity while weaker nations face harsh penalties—reveals their true function as mechanisms of control rather than genuine moral imperatives.
By recognizing morality as inherently subjective, we expose the coercive nature of universal moral claims. A society that acknowledges the diversity of moral perspectives is better equipped to foster genuine dialogue and coexistence. Instead of imposing artificial moral absolutes, ethical and legal systems should be constructed with an understanding of human individuality and the necessity of negotiated social agreements.
Conclusion
Natural Law fails as a legitimate concept because it lacks empirical evidence, serves as a tool of domination, and falsely assumes a universal morality that does not exist. The historical and political record demonstrates that claims to Natural Law have been used primarily to justify coercion and control, rather than to uncover any genuine moral truth. Morality, rather than being an objective reality, emerges from individual values and experiences. Recognizing this subjectivity allows for a more honest and flexible approach to ethical and legal systems, one that respects human diversity rather than imposing ideological uniformity.
By rejecting Natural Law, we free ourselves from the illusion of universal morality and open the door to a more nuanced understanding of ethics—one that acknowledges the complexities of human existence rather than imposing rigid, arbitrary norms. The path to justice and social harmony lies not in fabricated moral absolutes but in the recognition of individual agency and the negotiated agreements that allow diverse societies to coexist.
Natural Law is, in fact, nothing more than a political invention for use as a tool for oppression.
The k2p blog 