Sir, - William Binchy, in arguing that natural law is being superseded by rights which can be modified by man made law is implying that these "natural laws" are in some way immutable, like the scientific law of gravity. Surely the term "natural law" needs to be looked at. Mr Binchy uses it liberally, without once defining what he means by it.
My understanding of natural law, and I am no philosopher or legalist, is that it is a basic ethical principle which should underpin man made laws. Most people would agree that this is a good and desirable thing. But from where is this ethical principle derived? From human understanding, and human opinions and standards: These cannot, and do not, remain constant.
The notion of the inferiority of women would have been accepted as a "natural law" a hundred years ago, and underpinned all laws relating to property, enfranchisenent etc. But our thinking in this matter has evolved, and our laws are now based (or should be) on the idea of the equality of all human beings.
What Mr Binchy has failed to see, or does not want to see, is that our understanding of all human needs and rights has evolved. Most of us no longer see things in the way the framers of the Constitution did. For example, he quotes Article 41 as identifying the family as a natural human institution.
When the Constitution was drawn up, nobody in Ireland thought of the family as anything other than a married couple with children, but today the notion of the family is a multi faceted one. Therefore it could be said that in recognising this reality, the law of the land would indeed be following the natural law, ie the notion of the importance of the family. All that has changed is the understanding of the key word "family".
I disagree that the Supreme Court is rudderless. It seems to me, from the various decisions made in the last decade, that the court is only too aware that nothing is carved in stone, and that the onus is upon it to interpret the Constitution in the light of our evolved understanding of human needs and rights. This does indeed involve sailing in uncharted waters, but Western civilisation would not have reached the stage we are now at if Christopher Columbus had decided to stick to the coastline he knew.
The new climate of openness to change cannot but enrich society in the long run. Why is Mr Binchy so afraid of this prospect? - Yours, etc.,
Cherrymount,
Waterford.