Source: p 154, Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2010, 2 ed) by Kenneth J. Vandevelde

  Third, much law in the modern world governs mundane, trivial matters that could be regulated in any of a number of ways. It is simply implausible that the thousands of minute regulations applicable to daily life are rooted in God’s will or the nature of the universe. Naturalism thus provides an unconvincing justification for the content of much of contemporary law.

I recognise that God probably cares more about serious matters than 'minute regulations' (eg: complex tax codes, which (one would prefer to think) God would simplify), but the use of the adverb simply feels too unconditional and biased to me; I do not understand why it is simply implausible that determinism determines law.

Am I correct that the above quotation presupposes 100% free will, and rejects entirely determinism? Or did I neglect something that makes the above evident even for Free Willers (ie: Libertarians)?

  • Well it was once considered implausible that the heavens moved to a law different to the earth - until Newton came along; though I'm no longer sure that this is the right reading of A's De Caelo, ie the sublunary world being the world of generation and corruption; it might be an error of translation ... given the last book of A's metaphysics, and also how it opens. Commented Feb 25, 2016 at 22:10
  • To check or investigate this, would take, I guess a solid understanding of Ancient Greek. Commented Feb 25, 2016 at 22:11
  • It's not clear to me how there's any connection here to free will or determinism. Naturalism w/respect to law says that there is natural law (not in the sense of physical law) which has nothing to do with whether or not laws were predetermined. Laws could be determined without having divine or naturalistic justification, and vice-versa.
    – Era
    Commented Feb 25, 2016 at 22:17


You must log in to answer this question.