“Natural Law says…” vs. “the accepted customs of ______ say…” is perfectly understandable and would be well understood by Carlyle, Burke, and Thomas Aquinas… and probably even Chiang Kai-Shek. Nobody thinks that a groups’ particular custom dropped out of the sky (from an angel or alien species)… well, almost nobody… Of course those customs arose naturally, based on both universals (Natural Law proper) and the local conditions on the ground.

There are universal principles and then particular applications of those principles. The two are quite distinct, tho’ they both may seem equally natural. So it seems at best confusing to call them by the same name.

Actually, I would place your whole X, Y, Z framework under natural law. Not as a formula for natural law, but that people can come up with a formula. It’s kinda meta that way.

What is Law? Let me be precise and consider something as specific, minor, man-made, and minimally ideological/theological as a “bylaw” of a small company of a small number of similar partial owners, or even a homeowners association, with similar aligned interests in the prosperity of the enterprise or the livability of the neighborhood.

Abstractly, it is a rule concerning social interaction and coordination.

X is desired, Y, as a rule, as a system and mechanism by which we will interact and coordinate, is thought to be the optimal way to achieve X, given Z – the nature of the population, community, market, etc. the social-environmental conditions under which we are working.

For any X, Y, and Z, there are synergies and frictions. X usually is the synergy, the thing sought that requires the rule. Mutually beneficial management, instead of tragedy, of the commons. The frictions come from Z, who would not naturally do X (which is why we need the Y). My point is mathematical. Too few Z’s, and synergies are insubstantial. Too many (or too diverse, that is, sum of the individual standard-deviation distances from the community norm) and frictions overwhelm the benefit. Disaggregation into low-variance communities ensures that individuals get to live in places where they experience high synergy and low friction. Aggregate two such optimal distinct communities and the combination, by definition, has lower social welfare.

“Let us drive on this side of the street.” is perhaps the lowest form of this kind of law, a mere “protocol”, the benefit of which is merely existential, not substantive. It is self-evidently without possible rationale as to preference except that “well, the needs of interaction and coordination mean that we have to pick one.” The world gets by with both, but, it seems to me, at the right scale. Less than country, too difficult to switch back and forth. But global road traffic rules are also evidently unnecessary given the geographic domains to which most drivers restrict themselves.

Brilliant stuff, Handle, but as a Catholic, of course I’d have to quibble.

It’s I think a bit destructive, or at least a misinterpretation, of Natural Law to speak of multiple Natural Laws. Your trick, and it is a good one, is to stretch Natural Law mean more than it really does. Just as multi-culturalism isn’t boolean, neither are, for example, pedagogical best practices. What works best for any particular child, i.e., to inculturate them–to help them be well adapted to their social environment, at any particular time, will always lie somewhere on a continuum between the child-directed/adult advisement model and the strict do-as-I-say disciplinary model. Every child is at least a little bit unruly (unless you happen to be talking to a Montessori Cultist like I was last night… interesting story in its own right); you’d hate to kill all that unruliness. Every child is at least a little bit naturally curious; you’d hate to kill that too. These aren’t two distinct “Natural Laws”, therefore, but one–one in which (for this example) optimal pedagogical guidance at any point for any child is a prudential decision of person tasked (by nature or by payment for services) with caring for his needs. Again, one natural law, a range of options.

There are universal aspects of human nature, and differences in the narratives about how they arose don’t really alter this fact. The error isn’t in believing universals per se, but in believing that that which is in fact particular to you or your group applies to all men. In the limit, that can raise the body count quite a lot.

There is no necessary conflict, for example, between “all men are created by and in the image of God” and “some men are natural slaves”; indeed belief in God, properly interpreted, constrains one to believe in heirarchy all the way down (God->Jesus; Man->Wife; Master->Slave; King->Citizen; Parent->Child… it’s all, quite profoundly, quite beautifully in the Bible). That this (i.e., universal heirarchy) happens to agree with human experience in all places at all times makes it a part of One Natural Law… whether you happen believe in God or not. That heirarchy has been strongest in the most dominant cultures simply seals the deal.