The Laws of Nature as the Laws of the State

By editor in Within Our Space March 5, 2025

Last time, we spoke about several forms of what can be called the space of Odos. Today, we shall continue this theme. Now, we will focus on the form that can be correlated with the state.

Let us imagine a state where all its citizens — for the sake of simplification, we shall assume that everyone — are followers of the Teaching of the United Temple. Consequently, its laws would necessarily stem from the worldview of the Teaching. In other words, they would be built upon Odos. At this stage, we shall not consider specific laws but rather examine the situation as a whole. What could such a legislative system theoretically look like at its core? Is it even possible?

I believe that when you read the title of this article, certain questions immediately came to your mind. If I were in the role of a reader now, they would certainly have arisen for me. After all, the idea presented appears quite ambitious and, at the same time, difficult to implement in reality. Why? Because it contains several highly ambiguous aspects.

The first is whether a state can even build its legal system on the Laws of Nature. After all, what does Nature have to do with the state? A human being, by their very nature, is greatly emancipated from it. The Laws of Nature apply to animals. Humans are not animals. They have their own laws of life. What could it mean for them to “live by the Laws of Nature”? To leave cities, move into forests, and survive on whatever they find? This is, after all, how it is commonly imagined. There is also another interpretation: to emulate animals in the so-called naturalness of behaviour — eating, defecating, fighting, and copulating whenever and wherever one wishes, ignoring any ethical and social norms. Such behaviour is often described as bestial. If the first option is clearly impractical, the second is simply unacceptable. So how, then, can the Laws of Nature be transformed into the laws of the state by which people will live?

At first glance, without deeper thought, the arguments above might seem quite convincing. However, they contain a serious flaw. The mistake lies in the belief that humans are fundamentally separate from Nature, that upon becoming human, they somehow exited its context. This is entirely false. Humans are the product of evolution and remain part of Nature, part of its system. Yes, they are very different from animals. It is a different level. But the differences between a rock, a plant, and an animal are even greater — yet no one denies that all of them are part of Nature and exist according to its laws. Each has its own set of laws, which are based on common, universal foundations. The same applies to humans.

As hypothetical opponents argue, humans are not animals. This is true. But they have not fallen out of Nature. They have taken a unique place within it. And for this place, there exists a specific set of laws. In some respects, they overlap with the laws of animal life (though again — it depends on which animal, whether a holothurian or a monkey, as they cannot be measured by the same standard), while in others, they diverge radically. An animal, according to the Laws of Nature, lives as an animal, while a human, according to the Laws of Nature, lives as a human. The human function is defined within Nature’s system — and it is different from that of animals. Accordingly, different behaviour is required of them. And within Nature’s system, this behaviour is natural.

This raises another question: how, then, do we determine the difference? In what exactly does behaviour that is natural for humans differ from behaviour that is natural for animals? In what aspects? Where can we find the lists to compare them point by point?

Humans differ from animals primarily in that they possess an active intellect, intelligence, the ability to think creatively, and to act consciously. This is the foundation from which all other distinctions arise. Physiologically, humans are indeed very similar to animals. But an active intellect enables them to explore and understand the surrounding reality, to study the world, including themselves, and to purposefully change it. Not to explore reality in the way an animal does, searching for food, shelter, and so on, but on the level of meanings and purposes of existence — of reality itself and its elements. By studying something, a human can understand where it comes from, what it is, why it exists, and how it connects to other elements of reality. And such an understanding implies an entirely different set of reactions and motivations, leading to behaviour fundamentally different from that of animals. This results in a distinct interaction both with the world and among fellow humans. It introduces not only intellectual and creative but also moral and ethical dimensions to human life.

This is the fundamental difference between the set of Laws of Nature for animals and the set of Laws of Nature for humans. The human set includes a moral and ethical component.

But how can it be determined? Science is of little help here. It primarily studies Nature’s mechanisms and has little to say about its essence. Why does the Universe exist? What is the meaning of human life? What is their function in the system of the Universe? How should they live, what should they do to fulfil this function? These are crucial questions… And science has no answers to them. At least, not yet. One might argue that society is guided by moral and ethical principles. They must have come from somewhere. Indeed, they did. But they were not given to society by science. They are a legacy of religion — particularly Christianity, in the case of European culture. From a purely scientific perspective, the justification for this aspect of life would be inadequate.

Neither science nor religion can serve as a guide here. So where should one turn? Where should one look? Well, since we are discussing our space, the space of Odos, it is natural to turn to the worldview of the Teaching. Within it, we can find what is necessary. From it, we can learn why the Universe exists, the meaning of human life, and so on, as well as what moral principles emerge from these understandings. That is, what is correct for humans, what aligns with their role in the system of the Universe, and how, in light of this, they should live and act.

This is the conditional list, the set of behavioural laws natural for humans, mentioned earlier. From it, one can understand how this set differs from the one for animals, why these differences exist, what their purpose is, and what goals they serve. In other words, one can obtain what may be considered the foundation of human life and behaviour.

And therefore, the foundation of society. At least, of a society where people know these principles, recognise them as true, and strive to follow them. In such a society, they may be adopted as the laws of the state. Thus, the Laws of Nature can become state laws. They are transformed into such through human understanding and volition.

Of course, additional questions may arise.

For instance, why should the principles proposed by the Teaching be considered correct? Might other worldviews see things differently? Naturally, they do. But that is not the focus here. In states where Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism form the foundation of life, laws are based on the principles of those religions. In a state where the Teaching forms the foundation of life, laws will be based on the Teaching. To each their own.

Or another question: does the state, as a social institution, fit into the system of Nature? Because if it does not, if it is alien to it, then Nature’s laws cannot function within it. The answer is as follows: humans are social beings. Nature accounts for various forms of human organisation into communities. When humans emerged as a species, the relevant Laws of Nature included such possibilities. Among them was the state — whether as a permanent form or as a stage in societal development is a separate issue. But we can confidently assert that the state, as a form of human organisation, can be built upon the Laws of Nature, as this possibility is inherent in its very foundation. If this form of organisation is natural for humans, then, when properly realised, it can and must correspond to the natural laws of human life as part of Nature.

This is the broadest outline of the topic of the laws of Nature as the laws of the state. The Teaching holds the position that its practical implementation is possible. This opens up quite concrete prospects for the future. When and how these will transition from the realm of possibility to actual implementation remains to be seen. Meanwhile, there is much to consider and discuss. The topic is of the utmost importance, vast, and its relevance will only grow with time.