|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: WTF is Natural Law anyway?
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
From the Russ Hell thread:
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
To those of us who believe in natural law - i.e. in some form of objective moral order - what was right in 1950 was right in 1985 and is still right today. ...
I responded thus on the Russ Hell thread, and I'm also curious to see what responses come up in Purg. And I've deliberately chosen Purg and not Dead Horses because I want to see if Natural Law is ever invoked outside of arguments about teh gayz:
quote:
So what exactly is "natural law"? Where is it written down or codified? Is there such a thing as a Natural Supreme Court or a Natural Legislature? And why does it seem that natural law only gets trotted out when arguing about gender and sexuality?
So WTF is Natural Law anyway? If you're a believer in Natural Law, please enlighten me. How was Natural Law codified? What does it apply to, and what are its limitations? What happens when someone breaks a Natural Law or when people disagree about what Natural Law says? And why is there such a vast difference between Natural Law, which apparently is easily bent, broken, or ignored, and the REAL, unbreakable* laws of nature?
Contrary to what Russ said, Natural Law could have been used to justify racism in 1950, less so in 1985, and it's now 2015. So are we breaking Natural Law by not segregating the races, or does Natural Law no longer apply in this case? And if Natural Law no longer applies to the races, why do people like Russ still invoke it when discussing sexuality and gender?
*"Unbreakable" with all the usual scientific caveats.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Example of a natural law. Two objects are attracted to each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This law cannot be broken, but it can be ignored. If you step off a tall building in ignorance of this law you will fall towards the earth pulled by a force proportional to the product of your mass and the earths mass ... until you stop very suddenly when you hit the ground.
I have no equivalent law that applies to sexuality, race or anything else relating to human relationships.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
I want to see if Natural Law is ever invoked outside of arguments about teh gayz:
IngoB, late of this parish, used to invoke it on a regular basis to defend the RC prohibition of contraception (not usually a chief concern of teh gayz).
I can't remember hearing a natural law argument invoked in a non-sex-related context, but maybe that's a reflection of the fact that sex is the major area where different groups of Christians disagree about what is moral and correct behaviour.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Historically, there have been arguments that "it's natural that ..." to provide very dubious support for a range of ideas. Sometimes reading the sort of company that you'd be in I wonder why people think it's sensible to raise the "it's natural that ..." defence of homophobia.
Anyway, here are some of the unpleasant bedfellows for those who express "it's natural that ..." arguments (which I disagree with, in case there was any doubt):
- "It's natural that Africans are slaves"
- "It's natural that Aryans are the master race"
- "It's natural that White people need to care for the inferior races" (aka "The White Mans Burden" - apparently women were not to help carry it ... because "it's natural that women are weaker")
- "It's natural for men to make all the important decisions, because women are naturally designed for looking after children and are incapable of higher thoughts"
- "It's natural for the rich to be rich and the poor to be poor" - the rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate ... God ordered their estate (ie: it's natural)
Need I go on?
Appeal to "nature", or to God rodaining nature, has been a feature of a lot of rubbish, and in some case down right evil.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
As far as I understand it Natural Law is based on a view of creation that is teleological i.e believes that everything is moving towards a fundamental aim or purpose that it was designed to move towards by the designer of the Universe (God to some). It's Aristotelian and shows up in Roman Catholicism via Thomas Aquinas.
Aristotle believed that all things had four causes, material (what it was made of) formal (its shape or appearance) efficient cause (how it is moved or changed by things around it) and final cause (the end to which the thing is working).
So the argument from Natural Law isn't actually made by looking at nature and inferring laws from it. It's made by looking at Nature and assuming nature has a definite aim or purpose that it has been created to work towards and then working backwards from that assumption to ascertain how things should behave to further their move towards their intended purpose or end.
My problem with it is that I don't think you can look at Nature and argue for a designer based solely on what you see and secondly (as a consequence of that) that I don't believe the Universe has any designed aim in mind. Really I think it's a human attempt to impose moral order and purpose on an amoral natural order created by physical laws.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Not to mention that "looking" at nature is dependent on technology, methodology, and all sorts of stuff. Looking at nature today is very different from how ancient philosophers were able to look at nature.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Related:
Natural Law Party (Wikipedia).
We used to have this here in California. Never knew it was based in Transcendental Meditation.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
As far as I understand it Natural Law is based on a view of creation that is teleological i.e believes that everything is moving towards a fundamental aim or purpose that it was designed to move towards by the designer of the Universe (God to some). It's Aristotelian and shows up in Roman Catholicism via Thomas Aquinas.working backwards from that assumption to ascertain how things should behave to further their move towards their intended purpose or end.
Strictly speaking this, and the remainder of your post, is correct. In practice, resort is had to Natural Law when the proponent can find no better basis for the premise being propounded. Hence those who know the basics of polemics - eg IngoB - but have little real understanding of the substance of the debate - eg, again IngoB - use it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I might point out that it might not be "natural", or even "law", but using the apparent views of someone who has chosen not to be around to respond doesn't seem right.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
To both Gee D and Soror Magna
Yes I agree with both your points, Natural Law is neither natural nor a law, if it was then it'd be just as unbreakable as the laws of gravity and relativity are to us as we sit typing these posts.
People say 'natural law' when what they actually mean is 'what I think is/should be normal/the only permitted behaviour'
I am not in a position to know being pretty much an agnostic deist at best, but I think it's harder for a Theist and especially for a Christian to argue against the definition of Natural Law that I gave above. To give IngoB some credit I think he was arguing using sound reasoning - the only problem was that the premise he based all his reasoning on (that there is a God who created the universe for a purpose which we could discern) was shaky and therefore not valid in my view.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
My understanding is that natural law simply refers to the idea that moral behaviour can be derived by anyone of good intent without reference to instruction from religion. In some sense it's a counter argument to the claim of fundamentalists that atheists cannot have morality. Of course it can also be used to try and privilege religious stipulations with a universal quality that they don't merit.
The problem I have with it is that there are very few universal laws. Even laws against murder are strung with caveats (more in some cultures than others), and seem to boil down to "don't kill anyone you're not meant to kill".
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
This definition from the International Dictionary of Philosophy seems reasonable:
quote:
According to natural law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world.
It does not imply that it is simple to apply, any more than scientific law is.
But for those who reject it, what is your basis for morals and legislation? Revelation? What you learnt from the Telly?
Or just Power?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Principles derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ, no doubt coloured by the culture within which I was raised and live.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Principles derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ
The issues with that are:
1. It is sectarian in a mixed society to base moral law on the teachings of the founder of a (your) religion. The same problem applies to sharia law. OK for your personal morality it's not a problem, but we need something to guide legislation.
2. I see no evidence that Jesus was a moral philosopher, indeed it was a regular claim of orthodox christians that I used to move amongst, that he brought no new ethical insights that were not already part of the Jewish tradition.
3. It just does not cover enough and often reduces to principles that are so broad as to be platitudes.
Of course, natural law is also quite limited. But I think it should be applied to the extent that morality should be legislated in line with what our best understanding of the facts are. This will often be very controversial, as in the area of moral implications of ecological factors such as climate change. But I think it's worth trying.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think the problem is that 'natural law' is used (rightly or wrongly) for two distinct concepts:
1. The belief that however much diversity there is between different societies' ethical beliefs, there is a core that is common to nearly everyone;
2. The idea that the right use of a thing can be derived from the form of a thing.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
So WTF is Natural Law anyway? If you're a believer in Natural Law, please enlighten me. How was Natural Law codified? What does it apply to, and what are its limitations? What happens when someone breaks a Natural Law or when people disagree about what Natural Law says? And why is there such a vast difference between Natural Law, which apparently is easily bent, broken, or ignored, and the REAL, unbreakable* laws of nature?
'Natural law' used to be the term used to cover the default theory of secular morality, back when everybody was Christian but was aware that the Greeks and the Romans hadn't been. Since pagan moralists had been capable of acting well without reference to revelation, it followed that there was a moral law that could be determined without revelation. Hence a natural law.
(See the first book of Richard Hooker's Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity for an example and exposition.)
Natural law was divided into two parts, that affecting beings incapable of voluntary action (the ancestor of modern scientific law) and that affecting beings capable of voluntary action, who are therefore able to disobey the law of their being. All voluntary beings are supposed to act to seek felicity, both their own, and the general felicity; natural law is that means by which each being attains its felicity and the general felicity. Voluntary agents are capable however of choosing a lesser felicity over a greater, in which consists moral error.
Thing to note here is that on this schema the point of morality is to achieve happiness, for a suitably broad and now slightly archaic definition of 'happiness'. It is thus a sensible objection to any proposed moral rule that if everyone followed it lots of people would be miserable.
Modern philosophers defending some version of the above schema generally talk about virtue ethics or eudaimoniac ethics rather than using the phrase 'natural law'. See Rosalind Hursthouse's On Virtue Ethics, or Alasdair MacIntyre's Dependent Rational Animals. (MacIntyre is a Roman Catholic, but Dependent Rational Animals is written without reference to anything specifically Roman Catholic and avoids dead horse issues.)
(The reasons why the term 'natural law' is largely avoided by modern philosophers who arent' defending official Roman Catholic sexual ethics are probably several, one of which is the wish not to raise irrelevant questions about the physical sciences, and another is the wish not to raise associations with official Roman Catholic sexual ethics.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
My understanding is that natural law simply refers to the idea that moral behaviour can be derived by anyone of good intent without reference to instruction from religion.
Not every attempt to derive moral behaviour without reference to religion qualifies as natural law.
For example, if a theory sees morality as in some sense imposed upon human nature or contrary to human nature or independent of human nature, then it's not a natural law theory. (Kant's theory that something is good if done out of a good will that can be made universal and treats everybody as an end not as a means, is an example of something that is not natural law.) Nor is utilitarianism an example, since it aims merely at maximising pleasure rather than at any more three-dimensional view of the human good.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
Likewise I would say that existentialism is not compatible with natural law theory since existentialism doesn't accept the idea of a universal essence of humanity.
But documents like the UN declaration of human rights express both explicitly and repeatedly the idea that there are universal moral rules derived from what it means to be human, which take precedence over the beliefs of individual societies and their governments.
That absolutely is natural law theory in my opinion. When the authors of the Declaration of Independence say 'we hold these truths to be self evident', they mean that they hold those truths to be the natural law.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very good point about existentialism. In fact, you could say that many modern movements, such as post-modernism, skepticism, social constructionism, blah blah blah, reject essences. And they reject the 'appeal to nature' in its various forms. Having said that, the terms 'nature' and 'natural' are so vague that you can't really speak of ambiguity, but fuzziness.
It's been interesting to see the debates over trans people, where these issues come up, e.g. 'a woman isn't a man who cuts his cock off', and so on. So the topics of gender, sex, and sexuality have been, well, enlivened, through with these controversies.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
Principles derived from the teaching of Jesus Christ
The issues with that are:
1. It is sectarian in a mixed society to base moral law on the teachings of the founder of a (your) religion. The same problem applies to sharia law. OK for your personal morality it's not a problem, but we need something to guide legislation.
In a democratic society I can use it to guide my views on legislation. If someone else chooses to use something different, they're free to do so. There's no reason we all have to use the same set of guiding principles, though we will inevitably disagree about certain things as a result.
I find it adequate. Of course it doesn't provide clear, comprehensive answers in every situation but then neither does any system that I'm aware of.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Likewise I would say that existentialism is not compatible with natural law theory since existentialism doesn't accept the idea of a universal essence of humanity.
But documents like the UN declaration of human rights express both explicitly and repeatedly the idea that there are universal moral rules derived from what it means to be human, which take precedence over the beliefs of individual societies and their governments.
That absolutely is natural law theory in my opinion. When the authors of the Declaration of Independence say 'we hold these truths to be self evident', they mean that they hold those truths to be the natural law.
But "what it means to be human" isn't what is encoded in either of the documents. Our species can, and indeed did, survive ignoring those for the majority of our existence. We are a cooperative species, so it isn't purely law of claw and fang, but we can survive just fine with inequity. In small groups, in much lesser numbers than we do. Many of those rights involve what it takes to get along in large numbers with relative peace and stability. So more adaptive than natural.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Perhaps a simpler way to state it would be that if we had natural moral laws, we would have no need to codify them.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But "what it means to be human" isn't what is encoded in either of the documents. Our species can, and indeed did, survive ignoring those for the majority of our existence. We are a cooperative species, so it isn't purely law of claw and fang, but we can survive just fine with inequity. In small groups, in much lesser numbers than we do. Many of those rights involve what it takes to get along in large numbers with relative peace and stability. So more adaptive than natural.
I think the distinction between adaptive and natural in this context is something of an illusion. Human beings are by nature adaptive.
Besides, it may be true that the species survived while many members ignored human rights. But that isn't to say that it couldn't have done better.
Human rights give access to some non-moral benefit that exists prior to that right. Thus, the right to life implies that life is generally speaking either a benefit or necessary for other benefits. Ditto, a right to education, freedom of worship, etc. (In that sense, a collection of human rights does give a picture of those things that are considered benefits to human beings, and thereby a picture of human nature.) A society in which everyone enjoys those benefits is better than one in which those benefits are restricted. And I think support for human rights implies the belief that a society in which those rights are explicitly safeguarded gives better access to those benefits than say a dog eat dog society without regard for human rights.
If the dog eat dog society resulted in the spread of benefits more widely then human rights would be self-defeating.
quote:
Perhaps a simpler way to state it would be that if we had natural moral laws, we would have no need to codify them.
As I said above, the natural rights approach argues that beings capable of voluntary action are capable of deviating from law, and capable of misleading themselves about them, in a way that physical objects are not capable of deviating from physical laws.
Would it help if I said that (unless I am greatly misled) Buddhist ethics or Daoist ethics are formally examples of natural law ethics?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think the distinction between adaptive and natural in this context is something of an illusion. Human beings are by nature adaptive.
Besides, it may be true that the species survived while many members ignored human rights. But that isn't to say that it couldn't have done better.
Better is not a necessary concept in nature. Good enough is all that is required
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I said above, the natural rights approach argues that beings capable of voluntary action are capable of deviating from law, and capable of misleading themselves about them, in a way that physical objects are not capable of deviating from physical laws.
This is evident with or without natural law. My point about the codification was that if it were our natural state of being, it would not need be writ so large upon our laws and we would have fewer deviations.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if I said that (unless I am greatly misled) Buddhist ethics or Daoist ethics are formally examples of natural law ethics?
That would be both an oversimplification and, in regards to what most people express as "natural law", an over-complication.
At their heart, Buddhist ethics are to avoid evil; to do good, to purify the mind.
And, yes, Buddhism generally teaches this as inherent, not taught. Which is a least a tiny bit ironic.
Perhaps I am as unrestful or just a poor student, but I find this a difficult thing to reconcile with what I observe.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
There was an item in my morning paper about a man on trial for having sex with his dogs. The charge was 'crimes against nature'.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think the distinction between adaptive and natural in this context is something of an illusion. Human beings are by nature adaptive.
Besides, it may be true that the species survived while many members ignored human rights. But that isn't to say that it couldn't have done better.
Better is not a necessary concept in nature. Good enough is all that is required
In nature is not the same as by nature. 'Nature' is a word with a large number of meanings; the use to mean 'ecosystems and the physical support thereof, without human intervention' is not the sense in view in 'natural law', where 'nature' means 'the types of beings themselves'.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I said above, the natural rights approach argues that beings capable of voluntary action are capable of deviating from law, and capable of misleading themselves about them, in a way that physical objects are not capable of deviating from physical laws.
This is evident with or without natural law. My point about the codification was that if it were our natural state of being, it would not need be writ so large upon our laws and we would have fewer deviations.
My point I said was that acknowledging the fact is or was part of natural law theories. It's not an objection that has only just been thought of.
I'm not sure what the control group is supposed to be here. How do you know what you would expect it to be like?
The capacity for reason is part of our natural state of being, and yet we have plenty of intellectual errors and disagreements about.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Would it help if I said that (unless I am greatly misled) Buddhist ethics or Daoist ethics are formally examples of natural law ethics?
That would be both an oversimplification and, in regards to what most people express as "natural law", an over-complication.
At their heart, Buddhist ethics are to avoid evil; to do good, to purify the mind.
And, yes, Buddhism generally teaches this as inherent, not taught. Which is a least a tiny bit ironic.
Perhaps I am as unrestful or just a poor student, but I find this a difficult thing to reconcile with what I observe.
The aspect of Buddhist ethics I was thinking of was the aim of Buddhist ethics, which I believe is to cease suffering, both on one's own account, but also on others. That is, the four noble truths are so to speak natural laws that apply to all sentient beings, and Buddhist ethics exists as adherence to the fourth noble truth (the eightfold path).
As I understand it, the second noble truth, that desire leads to suffering, is therefore also a law that is inherent to sentient creatures, just as much as the eightfold path.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by Soror Magna
I want to see if Natural Law is ever invoked outside of arguments about teh gayz:
Here are a couple of well known examples of thinking heavily influenced by natural law theory.
Declaration of American independence
United Nations universal declaration of human rights
Here's another example of an invocation of natural law (see p. 3) that has nothing to do with sex. In fact, the impression some here have that invocations of natural law are primarily made in the context of speaking about sex seems to reflect a general ignorance of Roman Catholic moral theology. It is certainly relevant in sexual questions, but is invoked equally often in questions concerning social justice. Natural law includes things like the universal destination of human goods (i.e. I don't have a right to something if you need it to preserve your life), the right to life and liberty, and the right to conscientiously object to an unjust law.
The basic idea is that God has given a certain order to the world and that humans can, by the exercise of their reason, get some insight into how they might lead a fulfilled and happy life. It has little or nothing to do with the modern notion of "laws of nature" like gravity, since it concerns the realm of human moral choices, not the determination of things by physical forces.
[ 21. November 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: FCB ]
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I understand it, the second noble truth, that desire leads to suffering, is therefore also a law that is inherent to sentient creatures
I thought it was fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I understand it, the second noble truth, that desire leads to suffering, is therefore also a law that is inherent to sentient creatures
I thought it was fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.
A noble truth that is, but a Buddhist noble truth it is not.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
The basic idea is that God has given a certain order to the world and that humans can, by the exercise of their reason, get some insight into how they might lead a fulfilled and happy life. It has little or nothing to do with the modern notion of "laws of nature" like gravity, since it concerns the realm of human moral choices, not the determination of things by physical forces.
Okay, we've gone over this before, it looks like we're going to get to go over it again. This right here is the core of what natural law theory actually is, verses what gets called by that name. There are a few different versions (classical and New Natural Law are the best known, and there's some debate over whether some Stoic or British Empiricist theories count), but the core idea, that there are certain ethical principles that can be derived by reason as conducive to achieving the proper moral end of human existence, remains.
The classical outline of natural law theory—what usually gets cited by people citing NLT—is found in Aquinas, ST I.II, Q. 90-97, and 104-105, in what's usually called the "Treatise on Law." The most concise definition can be found at I.II Q. 91, a. 2, with further elucidation in the articles of question 94, and explication and application in the other questions, especially those on the human law, changes in the law, and whether there is a need for judicial precepts ("secondary" laws that have a directive and coordinative purpose, rather than a strictly moral force—like driving on the right side of the road in the States or that an American quarter has the head of George Washington on it).
The short version goes like this: there is one sort of law, the Eternal law, that is God's providential design for His creation. There is a second form of law derived from this, the natural law, arising from the natural inclinations and designs imprinted by the Creator.
This means...okay, it's really hard to describe without lapsing into the Aristotelian language of participation (the natural law is the way in which a creature, especially a rational one, participates in the eternal law), or using words that have technical senses in philosophy but other ones in common use (dare I suggest it, but these analogical meanings are probably the source of most of our confusion here), but here goes nothing.
The natural law is not understood by empirical observation, or ethnological studies, or what we today would understand as "seeking to understand nature." Granted, those things help, but to understand the nature of a thing, in the classical sense, does not mean you look at what it does, or what (most) everyone does, or what (most) everyone avoids, but what the inherent natural purpose of human existence is. It doesn't matter if every culture everywhere permits or forbids something; it could well be the case that every culture everywhere is wrong on that point. Similarly, it matters less what animals, plants, and atoms do; humans are rational creatures, capable of setting their own proximate ends, and endowed with free will. While they may have the same final end—a certain sort of ethical flourishing or good life—how they pursue that end, and even how they pursue it ethically, is up to them.
So to illustrate: the chiles I've been growing this year are, well, plants. They respond to the world around them in certain ways determined by their natures; if I overwater them, they'll rot, if it freezes, they'll die, if the sun shines for X many days in September while the temperature is Y degrees, they'll put on more flowers and ripen their fruit faster. On the other hand, I can choose how to water them, or when to pick my Fatallis, or whether I would like to use a Bhut Jolokia Assam in my tomato sauce this time. The choice of what chile I use in this case is morally neutral, informed by my own practical knowledge of cooking, horticulture, and my own plants (although using more than one of those Jolokias might be extremely imprudent). If I choose to share my chiles with my coworkers who enjoy them, I'm acting in a way consistent with seeking the good and moral life—fostering harmony, acting generously, letting them learn about new chiles and try to practice their own craft, etc. If I give a fatalli to a coworker without properly informing him what it is, I'm contributing to his misery, inhibiting his ability to pursue the good life, and, by taking enjoyment in another person's suffering, not pursuing my own beatitude. So I can choose a variety of different actions—some of which are morally good, some of which are unethical, and many of which are neutral—but what guides the morality of those actions is not that I must act in some predetermined way because of my nature, but that I should act in one way or another in pursuit of the goods proper to human nature.
There's a lot more to this, of course—it's the dominant theory of action and ethics in contemporary Catholicism and, by extension, American conservative intellectual circles—and I've said a lot more back in my long-past academic heyday. There are books on this. Lots of them. May be in some very small way responsible for bringing a few of them to publication. Steven Jensen has written a few good introductions to various points, and the works of McInerny and Hittinger are the standards of the field.
Now, this approach is particularly associated with contemporary Catholic intellectualism, hence the sense it only gets invoked in arguments about traditional marriage and respect for unborn human life—because, well, it seems that's all you ever hear moral pronouncements from the USCCB about these days. As FCB pointed out, it's been used for a lot more in the past. When I studied it, it was primarily from a political and legal point of view, especially in relation to questions of political liberalism and secondary precepts. There's a whole tradition that arises primarily from these few questions in I.II that's far, far more nuanced and extensive than I could ever hope to convey.
Now, there's also another tradition, also associated with a certain (less conservative) branch of Catholicism, called the New Natural Law. Rather than start with the logic of participation in the Eternal Law, NNL starts with explicitly secular first principles—that there is a good life, that we ought to seek it, that certain ethical principles and virtues ought to guide us in seeking it, and that these principles can be rationally explicated—and then seeks to create a sort of virtue theory of ethics. Critics of NNL claim that it doesn't have the necessary metaphysical grounding for a proper ethical theory, that it's just trying to circumvent a point from Hume that we shouldn't be paying attention to anyway, and that it's just trying to hide its Catholic origins, to kowtow to the secular academy, and that it should either admit what it really is (Catholicism in disguise) or just go away. I think those objections are unfair, unfounded, untrue, or all the above, but what do I know?
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
Thank you, Ariston!
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
... The natural law is not understood by empirical observation, or ethnological studies, or what we today would understand as "seeking to understand nature." Granted, those things help, but to understand the nature of a thing, in the classical sense, does not mean you look at what it does, or what (most) everyone does, or what (most) everyone avoids, but what the inherent natural purpose of human existence is. ...
Thank you, that explains everything. No wonder natural law seems so bullshit to me - it is just making up stuff about the inherent natural purpose of the existence of rocks or trees or fish, but without the hassle of observing what rocks and trees and fish actually do.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Thank you, Ariston!
quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:
... The natural law is not understood by empirical observation, or ethnological studies, or what we today would understand as "seeking to understand nature." Granted, those things help, but to understand the nature of a thing, in the classical sense, does not mean you look at what it does, or what (most) everyone does, or what (most) everyone avoids, but what the inherent natural purpose of human existence is. ...
No wonder natural law seems so bullshit to me - it is just making up stuff about the inherent natural purpose of the existence of rocks or trees or fish, but without the hassle of observing what rocks and trees and fish actually do.
That's not quite what Ariston said, although in my opinion it's a fair summary of the arguments that lead to conservative sexual ethics.
'Empirical observation' here, assuming I'm understanding Ariston, means specifically value-neutral inductive observation. That is, natural law doesn't start from looking at value-neutral 'is' statements, and try to get to 'ought' statements. It assumes it's using value-laden concepts from the outset. That doesn't mean that the concepts aren't open to critique, or have been assumed as axioms.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
A Course in Miracles... one of the recent daily lessons is apposite
quote:
Lesson 324
I Merely Follow, For I Would Not Lead.
Father, You are the One Who gave the plan for my salvation to me. You have set the way I am to go, the role to take, and every step in my appointed path. I cannot lose the way. I can but choose to wander off a while, and then return. Your loving Voice will always call me back, and guide my feet aright. My brothers all can follow in the way I lead them. Yet I merely follow in the way to You, as You direct me and would have me go.
So let us follow One Who knows the way. We need not tarry, and we cannot stray except an instant from His loving hand. We walk together, for we follow Him. And it is He Who makes the ending sure, and guarantees a safe returning home.
Natural Law in this context is staying in Divine Order and not "straying" (I think the word "Sin" has been used historically).
Making Natural Law of this kind into a set of rules (a la Augustine) is step 1 towards it being lost, because it has to be felt internally as an action arising from Love. I find it hard to accept all the comments on this talkboard wrt Paris - those acts were done outside of Love - one way or another they require Love to return them to order, not hatred or more violence. There is no global definitive Natural Law response - it is necessary for every individual to find their own.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
