Though natural law became a big thing in the West because of Aquinas, I have come to see that to the Rambam there is no essential difference between Torah Law and natural law. Torah Law is simply the fulfillment of natural law. [Or rather let me put it this way. To come to natural law one needs the Torah. But Torah also adds another dimension that is lacking in natural law that is perfection. But my point is the kind of distinction you see in Aquinas between the Divine Law and Natural Law really is just not there to the Rambam.]
Divine Law has always been a problem in the West because of the Antinomianism of Paul. Even Catholics when they appeal to something in the Law of Moses always suggest the reason is because of Natural Law.
Though חוקי השכל [laws of Reason] really was suggested as the reason for the laws of the Torah by Saadia Gaon, still no one made much of a distinction between the laws of reason and the laws of Torah until Aquinas.
There is what to go into about all this from the standpoint of Hegel and the Kant Friesian School. That is not to mention the Natural Law people (like Dworkin). {See this nice paper}As far as this goes to me the German idealists look something like the pre Soctratics before Plato and Aristotle. That is each one has a set of very important points but we have yet found any way to combine their collective insights into one cohesive system.
Divine Law has always been a problem in the West because of the Antinomianism of Paul. Even Catholics when they appeal to something in the Law of Moses always suggest the reason is because of Natural Law.
Though חוקי השכל [laws of Reason] really was suggested as the reason for the laws of the Torah by Saadia Gaon, still no one made much of a distinction between the laws of reason and the laws of Torah until Aquinas.
There is what to go into about all this from the standpoint of Hegel and the Kant Friesian School. That is not to mention the Natural Law people (like Dworkin). {See this nice paper}As far as this goes to me the German idealists look something like the pre Soctratics before Plato and Aristotle. That is each one has a set of very important points but we have yet found any way to combine their collective insights into one cohesive system.
