The law is a precept or set of precepts, dictated by the authority, by means of which something is commanded or prohibited agreed by the competent legislative bodies, within the prescribed legislative procedure, understanding that such bodies are the expression of the popular will represented by the Parliament or Legislative Power.
From the legal point of view, it is a legal norm in which the State addresses its subjects to fix between them and itself the limits of what is allowed. Its main attributes are: 1) bilaterality, 2) imperativity and, 3) coerciveness.
It is bilateral because it must consider that the legal relationship must necessarily be between two subjects, one active and the other passive, that is to say, one invested with a power to which corresponds an obligation of the other. The imperativity, called autarchy of the legal rule, refers to the fact that the rule is superimposed on the will of the subjects whose conduct it governs, regardless of whether their will may be contrary to the law. Finally, it is coercive, because the rule is imposed by a superior will, the State, and means the capacity of the rule to be obeyed, against and over the contrary attitudes of the subjects whose conduct it subjects, to guarantee its compliance. This means that, if its mandates are not spontaneously complied with by the obliged, it is legitimate to use force to ensure that they are punctually observed. In this way, the coercive capacity of the norm generates its inviolability.
Now, in turn, to all this, religions add their perception by adding morality to the law. In Christianity, for example, while for modern empiricist and post-metaphysical thought, law would find its foundation in consensus as an expression of the principle of the autonomy of the will, for the classical conception this foundation is found in the eternal law of which natural law participates.
In the first case, the conception of consensual moral law is a consequence of the crisis of reason in modernity, of the narrowing of reason reduced only to the knowledge of phenomena empirically verifiable by the positive sciences and of a radical secularization with its consequent moral relativism, which excludes both Faith and metaphysics purified by Faith itself, in the synthesis achieved between Hellenism and Christianity, and practical rationality as capable of attaining truth in the moral, political and juridical order. In this way there is a shift to the realm of the subjective (here is the crux of the question of modernity). The subject, based on his experience, decides what he considers admissible, and the subjective «conscience» becomes the only ethical instance.
According to Ratzinger: «man by himself, simply by his belonging to the human species, is the subject of rights, and his very existence is the bearer of values and norms, which can be found, but not invented. Perhaps today the doctrine of human rights should be complemented by a doctrine of human duties and the limits of man, and this could perhaps help to rethink the question of whether there could not be a reason of nature, and therefore a rational right for man and for man’s being in the world (….). The contemporary era has formulated, in the various declarations of human rights, a repertoire of normative elements of this type and has subtracted them from the game of majorities. The conscience of our times may well be satisfied with the internal evidence of these values. But this kind of self-limitation of inquiry also has a philosophical character. There are, then, values that are self-sustaining, that have their origin in the essence of the human being and are therefore untouchable for all possessors of that essence.
I invite you to read Matias’ post with the topic of the day
Finally, I encourage everyone to reflect on the concept of the day. No one else but us can re-signify our own being