Natural law x ancient convention

Abstract

This paper discusses the debate occurred among the ancient Greeks about the nature of the law. Basically two trends were confronted: the defenders of a "natural law" and conventionalists. Among the first we may mention Socrates, Plato, Aristotle’s and the Stoics. In the latter there were the sophists and epicureans. The ones that are favorable to the natural law argued that man was born with the law and when he complies with it, justice is done. Around this idea it may be obtained a society consensus about what to do and what not to do. The consensus would be in fundamental matters and with this the law could be stable, general, above group interests and mainly fair. The convencionalists, on the contrary, thought that the mentioned consensus was only a disguise of the hegemonic group. And if the law were a mere fancy of the dominant group, it would be transitory, particular, casuistic and mainly an impositive force. This debate was so significative that it was not lost in History, ít was maintained in the Middle Age and it was lighted again in the Modern Age with the contractualism divided between naturalists in favor of a natural law and conventionalists in favor of an absolute relative of the laws. Even in the Contemporaneous Age the two trends were confronted and still do, evidently coated with other clothes. The great majority of the liberals, for example, are submissive to the naturalism and the great majority of the marxists follow the convenciolist trend. For sure, nowadays the defenders of the " alternative right" have their roots in the conventionalism, and the followers of the idea of an impersonal right own their inspiration to the natural right.