the “naturalness” of nomos

8/19/2019 The “Naturalness” of Nomos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-naturalness-of-nomos 1/5

Yitan “Coco” WangBryn Mawr College

The “Naturalness” of Nomos

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle has an extensie !iscussion on

"ustice an! nomos as a #olitical "ustice$ In Boo% &, he im#lies that one of the

most im#ortant reasons 'ehin! the emergence of nomos is to #reent the

ruling of a tyrant ())*+a, *&$ -e further suggests that there are two %in!s of

"ustice, namely the natural an! the conentional ())*+', ).$ Aristotle

seems to in!icate that there is a 'igger #ortion of conventional justice than

natural justice in nomos, gien that it comes into 'eing through agreement

of #eo#le ())*+', **$ In this essay, I woul! li%e to challenge an! com#licate

Aristotle/s theory of nomos, es#ecially on how nomos came to 'e$

0irst, let us examine the nomoi that hae alrea!y 'een esta'lishe!

'efore our existence)$ These %in!s of nomoi almost feel natural to us

'ecause we are 'orn into acce#ting them an! 'eing ha'ituate! 'y them$

Although we might 'e a'le to contri'ute to the newer customs or law, we are

not the creators of those nomoi that existe! 'efore us$ We inherit these from

our ancestors consciously or unconsciously$ Thus, if we were to loo% at nomoi

from an in!ii!ual #ers#ectie, we !o feel as though it is something natural$

-oweer, this !oes not #roi!e enough ei!ence for us to conclu!e that

nomos is more natural than conentional$ 0urther, it is im#ortant to note that

I am neither !enying the fact that human 'eings are the initial cause of

nomoi, nor insinuating that there are some greater 'eings out there that

gae us law an! customs naturally$ 1ather, I am arguing that, as much as we

) By “our”, I !on/t mean human s#ecies 'ut human 'eings as in!ii!uals$

)




want to 'eliee in it, we !o not hae full control oer the eolement of

nomoi$

Now, since nomos is not natural 'ut only feels so, we must examine

how nomos comes into 'eing$ If we were to imagine the eolution of nomos,

the ery 2rst nomos in human history #ro'a'ly emerge! without #eo#le

'eing conscious of the #rocess$ As more nomoi a##ear, we starte! to reali3e

the nee! to mo!ify nomos from time to time an! eentually systemi3e it in

an institutional way$ A goo! exam#le of this is the thin% tan%s an! research

institutes in mo!ern times$ Those institutions woul! #roi!e !ata an!

research results to #olicy4ma%ers who woul! im#lement the a!ice in their

new #olicies$ Among all those #olicies, some are concerne! with legal issues

an! others with customs5$ Because of the systemi3ation of nomos, we hae a

false im#ression that we are a'le to tailor it to whateer 2ts the 'est for us at

our times$ -oweer, things !o not eer turn out the way that we want them

to in human history, if they eer !i!$ A!am 0erguson/s “law of unantici#ate!

conse6uences” can hel# us 'etter un!erstan! the situation$ It suggests that

the outcome of a #ur#oseful action is not #re!icta'le, an! een when the

moties match outcomes it is inci!ental$ When a##lying this law to our case,

it almost seems that whateer ha##ens 'etween the intention an! im#act is

out of reach for human reasoning$ Thus, nomos leans towar! the natural* in

5 0or exam#le, amen!ments are changes for law an! #olicy to incentii3e#eo#le from setting o7 2rewor%s !uring 8#ring 0estial for the sa%e ofenironment is, to some exten!, the change to customs$* The “natural” that I am using here shoul! 'e un!erstoo! as not su'"ect tohuman control$ I am aware of (an! #ersonally agree with the theories that

5




that human 'eings !on/t hae control oer the conse6uence of those

#ur#oseful initiaties$

0urther, as we s#ea% of nomos in this intention an! im#act #ara!igm, I

am 'y no means "ustifying the legitimacy of law$ Aristotle also !oes not iew

“following law” as "ustice ())*9a, )5$ 0urther, he im#lies that law is only an

institutional ex#ression of "ustice an! some of laws can een 'e un"ust

())*9a$ It is also im#ortant to recogni3e that when we s#ea% of nomos, we

!o not mean law on the surface leel exclusiely 'ut also customs an! the

connotations of law$

Another Aristotelian theory that further su##orts my argument on the

natural ten!ency of nomos is his un!erstan!ing of frien!shi#$ As he #ro#oses

that #olitical frien!shi# is the entity that hol!s cities together ())&&a, 5&4*:,

frien!shi# also in!irectly 'ecomes the foun!ation of nomos$ 0or, if there is no

human association, there is no nee! or 'asis for the existence of nomos$ -e

ex#licitly suggests, “when #eo#le are frien!s, they hae no nee! of "ustice,

'ut when they are "ust, they !o nee! frien!shi# in a!!ition” ())&&a, 5;45.$

Although this shows that frien!shi# is a necessary 'ut not su<cient con!ition

for the formation of a city, it also im#licitly critici3es nomos$ If we were to

ta%e Aristotle/s #raise of frien!shi# as the #remise for our argument, then

nomos can 'e un!erstoo! as some me!iocre thing that 'ranch out of the

natural a7ection of human 'eings$

suggest human 'eings are a #art of nature, 'ut it/s im#ortant to !istinguishthe two$

*




In general, although human 'eings are the origin of nomos in its early

stage of formation, we !o not hae com#lete control oer the conse6uences

of law an! customs$ 1ather, it has a natural tra"ectory of eolution$ 0urther,

as Aristotle #ro#oses, "ustice is not the ultimate goal of human association=

thus, when we un!erstan! the institutional ex#ression of nomos, we nee! to

#ut it in a 'igger context$ More s#eci2cally, frien!shi# is a higher an! more

necessary nee! for human 'eings, which comes from our natural ten!ency to

form relationshi# with other in!ii!uals in our s#ecies$ As the foun!ation for

the formation of cities an! human associations in general, its natural

character also contri'utes to the natural "ustice argument that we #roi!e!

in this essay$

+




Aristotle, 1o'ert C$ Bartlett, an! 8usan >$ Collins$ Aristotle's Nicomachean

Ethics$ Chicago? @niersity of Chicago, 5:))$ rint$

&

the “naturalness” of nomos

Documents