Denial of Nature a product of Post Modernism?

[cyrus]

Since Tribe is a law professor, I think by "natural" he's referring to the debate between Legal Naturalism and Legal Positivism, two general theories of Western jurisprudence. This doesn't have much to do with "nature" as such, nor photography of nature. In fact, Tribe's assertion of removing the "naturalistic" would benefit photographers...

[tim atherton]

The notion of the Natural. Most people I know find fulfillment in Nature. The notion of the Natural is welcome, as welcome as a jar of seashells on the coffee table (cliche)or a sugarpinecone on the mantle(cliche) or daffodills in a garden (cliche.) Or a photo of Half Dome(!) What these people have in common, according to Tribe, would be that they are against progress.

Okay - quick though while I'm still processing this... What about the people of Louisiana or Thailand? Isn't the idea of fulfillment in Nature at times a rather quaint, culturally specific Walden Pond sort of thing? It is just one limited response to certain aspects of nature Post-Enlightenment?

[tim atherton]

Since Tribe is a law professor, I think by "natural" he's referring to the debate between Legal Naturalism and Legal Positivism, two general theories of Western jurisprudence. This doesn't have much to do with "nature" as such, nor photography of nature. In fact, Tribe's assertion of removing the "naturalistic" would benefit photographers...

what about those who want to remove naturism...?

[tim atherton]

This is the same kind of thought that leads to eminent domain issues.

no real problem with that when it's needed

[steve_782]

He wants to do away with "The Natural"? Has he talked with Robert Redford about this yet?

[Donald Brewster]

Cyrus is correct about the gist of Tribe's lecture. Anyway, the bottom line is that photographers really shouldn't worry about it; in regards to their photography at least. Tribe is arguing about what could be called the "grounding norm" for jurisprudence. By the way, the US constitution is a natural law document, so Tribe has a big hill to climb in that regard. Tribe is a very well known law professor. Tribe is well regarded as an able and brilliant man by students, academics, and the Supreme Court -- whether they agree with him or not. Here is a short article that discusses Tribe's position within a fairly narrow topic: http://www.propositionsonline.com/html/why_not.html

[chris jordan]

Hey guys, especially John, what Mr. Tribe is talking about has absolutely NOTHING to do with paving over Yosemite and killing all the critters. Several posters have already said that here, and they're right.

Modern legal theory recognizes that there aren't any natural, automatic, God-given rights; all rights and duties between people are the results of our choices, transactions, negotiations, and power-wielding. For example, Christians say that fetuses have a "right" to life, given to them by God. Others argue that women have a natural "right" to an abortion. Which one is it? Neither one. The answer is purely political; there is nowhere we can look to find out what is the "natural" answer to a question like that, or to any other question of human rights.

Another example: does God give Starbucks a natural "right" to use aggressive cut-throat practices to put a competing local coffee shop out of business? Or does the competing business have a "natural" right to exist because it was there first? Obviously there is no natural law that governs any of that; the answer is decided by society and politics, not by God or concepts of what is "natural."

That's why Tribe says we need to eliminate the word "natural" from discussions of human rights; he simply recognizes that there is no "natural" when it comes to deciding who gets what in our complex modern world.

Tribe also is an environmentalist, a passionate advocate for animal rights, and a solid intelligent practical liberal thinker whose philosopies are in many areas are consistent with Al Gore's, if you happen to be in that camp. So beware of taking one out-of-context phrase that you misunderstood, and using it to write off a guy who otherwise might carry a lot of credibility if you knew what he was talking about.

[robc]

my take on this is:

do you or I have a right to work? It is the question which is wrong. It should be, do you or I have the right to stop someone else from working. Obvious answer is no, so by default you or I have the right to work. However, it gets more complex because the fact you have a right to work does not entitle you to demand that someone else provides you with work since they have an equal right not to do so.

So, taking a very controversial example, does a woman have the right to have an abortion? Well, do you or I have the right to stop her? No, so yes she does, but she does not have the right to demand that someone else performs it. Catch 22 eh? Intervention through law becomes necessary, but that imposes responsibilities on both sides which are often skewed because of political, cultural or religious beliefs. Result equals controversy and neither side is happy. Legal rights can never be natural.

Most people demanding rights don't take into consideration that they are demanding that someone else does something to provide them with that right. That can't be right...

[David Karp]

To date in this country, we have decided that natural law is not our law. Our laws come from our federal and state constitutions and the structures created under those constitutions, plus, when appropriate, the common law of the states.

This concept of natural law is based on laws derived from nature, in other words (Aquinas's) laws should resemble nature in that they are "good" or at least not "bad." The problem is the definition of "natural" or "good" or "bad." These concepts are even more amorphous and subject to personal interpretation than those in our constitution. Natural law arguments can be made both against and in favor of many activities that we have come to accept. So based on the natural "law" of survival of the fittest, any group that has become able to subjugate another group would have the right to do so. Similarly, arguments could be constructed around the natural "law" concept that in nature species procreate to ensure their survival, and that sexual behavior designed to procreate is "natural," while any other sexual behavior is not.

That is not how our constitution has been interpreted (to date anyway). There are those that would argue that regardless of our constitution or laws passed under it they have the right to act to prevent people from engaging in certain legally protected behaviors under the color of "natural law." Our courts have declined to adopt these justifications, preferring to rely on the interpretation of the constitution, statutes, and legal precedents.

Without reading the writings to which your friends referred, my guess (based on my knowledge regarding the man) is that this is the sort of thing Tribe is against. I had not thought much about Tribe for a while. He is actually a pretty interesting guy, who has had great success as both a law professor and as an advocate arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Mike H.]

John, Stay away from caffeine. And attorneys with lofty ideals. Or any attorneys.