The document compares and contrasts theological and secular theories of natural law. Theologically, laws are believed to originate from a divine source like God. Secular theories view laws as originating from human nature and reason, not necessarily from divine commands. While the theories differ in their interpretations of where laws come from, they also share some similarities. Namely, both see laws as derived from nature. More recently, the theological theory has lost credibility as the sole basis for laws due to difficulties adapting divine laws to a changing world and reconciling different religious views of divine law. Overall, the document argues that while both theories remain relevant, the secular theory better accommodates the needs of modern society.

1. Compare and contrast theological theories of Natural Law with that of secular theories
of Natural Law and suggest reasons why the former has lost its credibility.
Being a non static theory of law, the evolvement of Natural Law as the result of
disparage interpretation of the founding word "nature" has been studied by many. Natural
Law is said to be a non stagnant school of thought as the jurists that deemed to be a naturalist
circled their theories on a different themes though all are to be considered as Naturalist
theories. Among the most influential theories of Natural law are theological and secular
theories which are to be discussed as below.
The first aspect of this comparison put distinction on the interpretation of both
theories. Literally, theological is defined as relating to the study of religious and faith. In
contrast, secular is literally interpreted as relating to the world in which is not eternity and
temporal in nature. The word secular itself was originated from Latin word 'saeculum' which
means present world. Hence, to put a conceptual understanding of both theories is easy. The
former put emphasis on religion that is to say, they believe laws must originate from divine
source such as from God whereas the latter is based on the evolved theory that laws must be
in accordance with nature and are not necessarily to be derived from divine sources.
Secondly, following the above interpretation, the description given by jurists of both
naturalist theories are also different. For example, St Augustine stated that law must come
from God for it to be valid. The same was hold by Blackstone as he stated that natural law is
superior as God himself dictated it to be law. These illustrate the theological theory whereby
law is related to God and divine elements. The position is however different for the holder of
secular theory. They on the other hand believe that law includes those of which are in
accordance with nature. Some jurist such as St Thomas Aquinas and Cicero hold that natural
law is nothing but right reason in accordance with nature and often is associated with theory
of reasonableness. There was no mention on religious or law being a derivative of divine
sources for the holder of secular theory.
Thirdly, a distinction can also be drawn from their theoretical aspect. For example, for
the theologist, their theory is rather more straightforward by putting the stress on the source of
law instead of the procedure, fairness and reasonableness and the reason why laws ought to be
followed besides the reason that it is a God-made laws. However, for the secularist, they came
up with various comprehensible theories on how the law should be made, the reasonableness
theory based on the reasonable man test and why man ought to follow the law. In simpler

2. words, the secularists' theories are more holistic and they cover further aspect of the law than
its mere source as compared to the theologist under Natural Law.
Despite those distinctions, it could not be said that these cluster of theories did not at
all intersect. Rooting under the same Naturalist's roof, there are few similarities pose by both.
Taking as an example, both the theories involve the belief that law must come from nature.
Only the interpretation of nature is what differs, but both groups agree upon the fact that
nature regulates law. Regardless theologist restriction to relate nature only to divinity but at
the same time, to exclude the secularist interpretation to include the surrounding ie human
itself and other factors such as procedural and the substantive detail of the law will be
erroneous. This is because; both came from what is believed should be interpreted as nature,
respectively.
`
In addition, there are also naturalists who are not inclined to either group. This
illustrates similarity as jurist such as Aquinas took a hybrid position by combining both the
ideologies through his famous four types of law inter alia including lex divina among other
types of secularist ideas. Though this point may not be taken as similarities in term that
nothing is same, but bear in mind only those of similar nature can be put under the same
cluster.
Furthermore, upon the evolvement of this school of thought, both the theories became
one in the sense that one cannot be taken out from another. For example, through Fuller's
Eight Deciderata, integration of divinity is part of his pillars of good law. It can be seen in
some of his pillars such as laws must be free from contradiction and it must be sufficiently
constant, theologists' theory is included as God made laws are often without contradiction and
is practice from time to time without the need for core altering. A simple example would be
'man must not kill another man' which is a law originating from God as manifested (for
example) in the Holy Quran. As good as it is as law to the theologist, it is also a valid law in
the eyes of the secularist as it complies with reasonableness and procedural validity such as it
must be intelligible and constant law as stated to be deciderata by Fuller. All in all, both
theories could not be separated from each other as proved by Fuller's Eight Deciderata which
was then enhanced by Finnis through his basic goods approach.
From time to time, the theological approach loses its prominence. Although it is
undeniable that this approach is often taken as consideration in making laws, the secular

3. theory is more preferable in today's society. An analysis for this weakened credibility is
attempted to be provided as follows.
First and foremost, it must be noted that God-made laws are not made from time to
time. The adaptation of it is doubtlessly possible to be made, but there are no longer new
wahyu (message of Allah) delivered to human in today's world as compared to the Prophet's
lifetime. Hence to adjust the laws to suit our globalised world will be difficult if for laws to be
valid it must come only from God is to be enforced.
Apart from that, to declare purely anything coming from divine source as laws will
lead to chaos. This is because, one's God or religion differs from each other and what if there
is propagation of new religion and its believers wanted their laws claim to be made by their
God to be upheld as valid laws? Uncertainties and absent of certain guidelines as what laws
are to be considered as 'truly' divine law will surely pilot disorder.
There is also technical aspect of this deterioration. Imagine if only divine laws are to
be considered valid as embraced by the theologist, what will happen if there is a sudden need
to pass quick law to accommodate current situation such as emergency or war? Must human
wait for laws to 'fall from above' before it can then be utilised for the society of the world?
Besides the fact that it will not be practical, the theological approach is also absurd to be
solely applied in this ever-changing world.
To sum it up, there is no hesitation to admit both theological and secular theory of
natural law school possess apparent distinctions but to draw a clear cut categorization will be
impossible as both shares some similarities and are often integrated as one. But, what is more
important is to notice that theological theory has loses its credibility for this theory to stand on
its own will be impossible to be permitted to suit the needs of the society. Not to stand against
theological approach, but incorporation, alteration and modification must be made by human
without ever going in opposition to the religion, for it to be self-sufficient might not be
possible.
FOR COVER USE:
NUR AINNABILA BINTI ROSDI
2011612334