The Development Of Natural Law and Natural Law Theories in The XVII Century to XVIII Century
XVII Century Theory of Natural Law
As previously mentioned, the teachings of natural law provide a new basis for an overview of the thinking about the state and law, which in the history of thinking about the state and law have a separate and important position, and have further consequences for the development of the state administration, especially in Western Europe, especially in the XVII and XVIII centuries, this theory of natural law was very powerful and gave rise to new teachings.
Thinking about the state and law in the sixteenth century, regarding the incarnation of absolute power and its justification or juridical strengthening, as well as the necessary boundaries for it.
This last thing, often causes differences of opinion regarding the answer, where the real origin of the power is.
In this case it turns out that the theological view always plays a role.
This is one of the problems inherited from medieval times, which will continue, in its new forms.
Another problem is : regarding the goals of the absolutism system itself. The answer has always been dominated by theological minds.
But besides that, although the mindset of the monarchomacons in the first half of the eighteenth century was still going on, there was something peculiar to that era, was a new general basis, in this case the rationale for the state and law. The reasons are not theological but rational and hypothetical.
The proof : To solve the problem of how the state came into being, or the origin of the state, the theory of natural law is based on the human condition when the state itself was not yet formed, did not exist, so it was still in a state of free nature, still in a state of nature. Humans in this state are called humans inabstracto.
Humans from the state of the wild are bound by state regulations
By the teachings of natural law this question is answered as follows : that in a state of free nature, humans actually already have reason, reason, so they can think.
Then with this ratio they can know that the freedom contained in the state of nature threatens their life and property.
Since it is indeed an irregular state, it is completely free.
So it is not surprising that one human considers another human as his enemy, and some even think that he is a wolf.
War broke out between one on one, one against all, or all clouds all.
One human considers another human as his prey. So basically there is always chaos.
So to prevent such a thing, the humans met each other, gathered and entered into an agreement, which was then called the community agreement.
Because through or by means of the agreement, a human unit called society was formed.
So that there is peace in that society, then by means of this agreement one of the people who is entrusted with the power to lead the community is chosen so that in that society there is peace. This society continues to develop and in time it reaches the form of a state.
Development of Natural Law
It has been said that the theory of natural law developed in a new or modern form in the XVII and XVIII centuries.
But in these two centuries, the teachings of natural law have differed. The differences are basic, principal or basic.
However, the difference is not about the material or the main content of the teachings, but only about or lies in its nature, or function, or how it is used.
How is that difference ? Along with the development of the teachings of natural law in the XVII century, people began to become aware of the arbitrariness of kings who ruled with absolute power, as well as its excesses or dangers. So they began to oppose by presenting his teachings.
But his thinking is only constructive, construct and explain. This means that people only accept the existing condition at that time as a true condition, as a normal condition, whether regarding the state administration (absolutism), politics or other matters.
Therefore, people always compile reasons or bases, all of which are based on natural laws, to explain and provide scientific juridical bases for the conditions that existed at that time.
For this, people use an inductive way of thinking, namely a way of thinking that starts from a specific state to a general state.
Meanwhile, the nature of the teaching of natural law in the XVIII century is quite different.
The XVIII century was a century rather than reason, although the eighteenth century was also the same, but the task given to ratio is completely different.
When the character and attitude of reason or ratio in the XVIII century changed from accepting and explaining to giving judgment, so judging.
People think that something that exists, which developed according to historical growth, is not based on thought.
So people do not accept the conditions and facts that exist at that time as conditions and facts that are true and natural, if what the mind wants after being tested with existing circumstances and facts is not appropriate.
People are not satisfied with the existing conditions and realities, they want to make changes, because the existing conditions and realities are considered incompatible with the ratio.
They want to create new circumstances and realities in accordance with the ratio.
Therefore, the nature and attitude of natural law in the XVIII century is not only judging, but also propagandistic and political.
Thus reason or reason acquired a revolutionary character, thought about the state and law developed in such a way, and from that moment on the way of thinking people began to change from inductive to deductive, that is, a way of thinking that starts from general things to things. the special one.
As a result of differences in Natural Law of the XVII and XVIII centuries
What is the reason why there are differences in the nature and attitude of the natural law teaching of the eighteenth century and the natural law of the eighteenth century?
The answer is from a condition inherited from the medieval era and renaissance thoughts, namely the absolutist system of government.
Because this system in its development throughout the centuries will always increase in size, and the most important thing is that it will always obstruct the development of thinking about the state and law.
And because the feudalism system of the Middle Ages still persisted, this caused the resources of welfare to remain in the control of the aristocracy, so that the people became increasingly depressed and poor, and this would not be surprising if it was considered contrary to reason, and a sense of uneasiness. complacency. This will result in rebellions against the existing rulers.
Now answer rather than consequence. If in the XVII century where the nature and attitude of natural law teachings only accepted and explained, it even strengthened to provide a scientific legal basis for existing conditions and realities, as well as thoughts about the state and law, then the result would not have political influence. any; so the situation is calm, because all of that is considered as it should be, and therefore also according to the ratio.
The situation is different from the consequences of the teachings of natural law in the XVIII century, whose character and attitude provide an assessment of all circumstances and realities based on that ratio.
The result is profound and will gain important political insights. Because all existing conditions and facts will be assessed and tested with what the mind or ratio wants.
Ratio is very deified, so all circumstances and realities that are deemed incompatible with reason are overhauled and changed in such a way that they are in accordance with the will of reason, because only these things are considered true.
In thinking about the state and law, so are the circumstances.
They oppose the government system of absolutism with their teachings, because the system of government of absolutism is considered incompatible with reason.
This is what then led to major changes and also major revolutions in France and in America.
The nature of the revolution is against the absolutist system of government, because it is considered inappropriate and unacceptable by reason.
This will be the character and attitude of the teachings of the great thinkers of the state and law of the XVII and XVIII centuries.
In order to more simply understand these teachings, we must first know what natural laws are, then the scholars we will study their teachings are classified as schools of natural law in the XVII century, or belong to the flow of natural law in the XVIII century, then how? the circumstances especially concerning the system of government at the time of the scholar's lifetime, for this is decisive, because of the generally hypothetical nature of their teaching.
If we already know all that, then that is the nature and attitude of the teachings of the great thinkers of the state and law in the XVII and XVIII centuries.
As the basis or basis for thinking about the State and law from the teachings of natural law in the XVII and XVIII centuries, the thought of natural law has been revived by the jesuits, especially by Bellarmin and by Francesco Suarez, in their struggle against the power system. absolutism in previous centuries.
It's just the difference: if their natural laws are always connected with a theological view of life, especially the Catholic world view; whereas people in the XVII and XVIII centuries tried to break away from this connection, especially in the realm of thinking about the state and law. And will base on the ratio.
Thus, natural law will have a place that is free and independent of various religions, and will even stand on it, because people will include it in the renaissance cosmic-mathematical world view.
The act will be a huge and important event or problem in the history of thinking about the state and law.
And in this case the name Hugo de Groot or Grotius will be the first to lay the foundations of modern natural law (natural law in the XVII century and XVIII century.
