Confusion regarding "natural" law

[Oxy]

Hello, everyone! I am attempting to comprehend the relationship between the Catholic Church and natural law. Natural law seems to be a common moral framework that individuals point towards when defending a moral teaching. However, I do not believe that nature is always a reliable source from which we can arrive at moral conclusions. I would like to place forward a few examples. My intention is not to mock but to discuss and learn more. Thank you for your time.

1. Homosexuality: although the “parts” do not fit together in the traditional sense, homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.
2. Romantic relationships: I sincerely hope that a human couple never looks toward a praying mantis pair for interpersonal guidance. I know in my heart that God did not intend for a wife to devour her husband after making love.
3. Natural law in a modern world: we currently live in a society which is incredibly unlike anything which has existed for thousands of years. Cars are not natural, neither are surgical procedures, air conditioning nor light bulbs. Even so, many technological advances have done tremendous good.
4. Nature is cruel: when I see a raccoon kill a newborn duck, I do not think of a merciful and loving God. Nature can be incredibly inspiring and beautiful, but it is also hardwired in such a way that many animals must repeatedly kill others in order to survive.

Thank you for reading through, I look forward to your helpful (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Rhubarb]

Posting to watch this thread. I haven’t ever heard a satisfying explanation how natural law doesn’t fly afoul of the is-ought problem.

 

[Arkansan]

Natural law doesn’t mean “do as animals do”. What it means is that moral norms are rooted in human nature, IOW human nature determines what is good and what is bad for humans. “Seek the good, avoid evil” being a self-evident moral principle.

E.g. Sexuality exists mainly for the purpose of procreation (that it also serves as an aid to pair-bonding does not refute this, since such pair-bonding is useful for the sake of the offspring), therefore any act which is inherently contrary to the good of procreation is evil.

It is also evident that a long-term commitment from both parents is necessary (or at any rate, very useful) for proper human development. This is why engaging in sexual acts outside marriage is wrong.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Romantic relationships: I sincerely hope that a human couple never looks toward a praying mantis pair for interpersonal guidance. I know in my heart that God did not intend for a wife to devour her husband after making love.

Yet you write:

Homosexuality: although the “parts” do not fit together in the traditional sense, homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.

Can’t have it both ways.

Natural law in a modern world: we currently live in a society which is incredibly unlike anything which has existed for thousands of years. Cars are not natural, neither are surgical procedures, air conditioning nor light bulbs. Even so, many technological advances have done tremendous good.

Ah, yes. The good old technology argument. The ancient world was also more sophisticated technologically than people thought.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

PS—all technology and its applications are based on laws, so…

Nature is cruel: when I see a raccoon kill a newborn duck, I do not think of a merciful and loving God. Nature can be incredibly inspiring and beautiful, but it is also hardwired in such a way that many animals must repeatedly kill others in order to survive.

Don’t even give a thought to bacteria then…

 

[phil19034]

Hello, everyone! I am attempting to comprehend the relationship between the Catholic Church and natural law. Natural law seems to be a common moral framework that individuals point towards when defending a moral teaching. However, I do not believe that nature is always a reliable source from which we can arrive at moral conclusions. I would like to place forward a few examples. My intention is not to mock but to discuss and learn more. Thank you for your time.

1. Homosexuality: although the “parts” do not fit together in the traditional sense, homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.
2. Romantic relationships: I sincerely hope that a human couple never looks toward a praying mantis pair for interpersonal guidance. I know in my heart that God did not intend for a wife to devour her husband after making love.
3. Natural law in a modern world: we currently live in a society which is incredibly unlike anything which has existed for thousands of years. Cars are not natural, neither are surgical procedures, air conditioning nor light bulbs. Even so, many technological advances have done tremendous good.
4. Nature is cruel: when I see a raccoon kill a newborn duck, I do not think of a merciful and loving God. Nature can be incredibly inspiring and beautiful, but it is also hardwired in such a way that many animals must repeatedly kill others in order to survive.

Thank you for reading through, I look forward to your helpful (name removed by moderator)ut.

The Natural Law has nothing to do with animals. The Natural Law is not the same thing as the Law of Nature.

The Natural Law has to do with what Humans can naturally figure out for themselves (regardless of which civilization). There are certain things that programmed into us which we know are not the way we humans are intended to function.

The Natural Law also deals human biology & philosophy.

The Natural Law is practically a universal (or near universal) set of morals/ethics/values that all ancient Homo Sapiens share (I’m not going to discuss pre-historic), regardless if they were in Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe, etc.

The Catholic Church teaches that we are all made in the Likeness of God and that we are “programmed” with certain morals that all humans can come to recognize even without religion. That’s the Natural Law.

 

[Vico]

Nature is cruel: when I see a raccoon kill a newborn duck, I do not think of a merciful and loving God. Nature can be incredibly inspiring and beautiful, but it is also hardwired in such a way that many animals must repeatedly kill others in order to survive.

Since animals cannot sin, there is no sin in their killing.

 

[TheOldColonel]

The Natural Law and nature are not the same thing. Many things occurs in nature which do not conform to Natural Law. For our world is fallen and imperfect. Yet, the challenge for human beings is to live according to the Natural Law. In doing so, we most certainly will be confronted with our own flaws, sinfulness and weaknesses.

 

[Benadam]

Hold on you guys. Human nature is natural to life on earth. The powers of nature serve human nature when human nature is as it was created. Jesus demonstrated that by calming the seas.

As for homosexuality the animals demonstrate the marital bond in the pairbond males and females form to reproduce. A male and female bear are enemies unless they form a pairbond to mate. They form this bond to create a safe environment to produce young. If they both raised young the pairbond would extend untill the young are able to survive on their own. The pairbond that is natural to humans is the marital bond and it also forms a safe environment to reproduce and raise young. Human nature includes an immortal soul. So permanence is an added characteristic to the bond that is for creating a safe environment to reproduce and raise young.

 

[ratio1]

One very good example of natural law is the yin yang principle of Chinese philosophy. It is the basis on which all Chinese moral philosophy is derived from.

Since God made nature with its inherent characteristics, following the yin yang principle reflects in following God’s law.

 

[thistle]

Hello, everyone! I am attempting to comprehend the relationship between the Catholic Church and natural law. Natural law seems to be a common moral framework that individuals point towards when defending a moral teaching. However, I do not believe that nature is always a reliable source from which we can arrive at moral conclusions. I would like to place forward a few examples. My intention is not to mock but to discuss and learn more. Thank you for your time.

Homosexuality: although the “parts” do not fit together in the traditional sense, homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.
Romantic relationships: I sincerely hope that a human couple never looks toward a praying mantis pair for interpersonal guidance. I know in my heart that God did not intend for a wife to devour her husband after making love.
Natural law in a modern world: we currently live in a society which is incredibly unlike anything which has existed for thousands of years. Cars are not natural, neither are surgical procedures, air conditioning nor light bulbs. Even so, many technological advances have done tremendous good.
Nature is cruel: when I see a raccoon kill a newborn duck, I do not think of a merciful and loving God. Nature can be incredibly inspiring and beautiful, but it is also hardwired in such a way that many animals must repeatedly kill others in order to survive.

Thank you for reading through, I look forward to your helpful (name removed by moderator)ut.

CCC 1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

 

[pocaracas]

Natural law doesn’t mean “do as animals do”. What it means is that moral norms are rooted in human nature, IOW human nature determines what is good and what is bad for humans. “Seek the good, avoid evil” being a self-evident moral principle.

And then all our troubles begin in where different groups of people put the line between this good and evil.

E.g. Sexuality exists mainly for the purpose of procreation (that it also serves as an aid to pair-bonding does not refute this, since such pair-bonding is useful for the sake of the offspring), therefore any act which is inherently contrary to the good of procreation is evil.

I’d disagree with such an interpretation, for when procreation leads to overpopulation, it does more bad than good. And humanity has reached that stage… and then averted it by growing genetically modified high-yield crops. Still, the population increases and the danger of overpopulation looms.

Thus, worldwide population control should be given priority over individual procreative “good”. But that’s not what the RCC has been doing in most of the world, is it? To me, that screams “human based organization”, as opposed to the claim that it’s somehow inspired by a divine overseer.

It is also evident that a long-term commitment from both parents is necessary (or at any rate, very useful) for proper human development. This is why engaging in sexual acts outside marriage is wrong.

However, under a controlled scenario where procreation is very unlikely to occur, such sexual acts would not be wrong, would they?

Homosexuality: although the “parts” do not fit together in the traditional sense, homosexuality is present throughout the animal kingdom.

Homosexuality could be seen as a form of population self regulation.
In other animal species, it exists. In humans, too in between 1 and 5% of the population.
As the population grows, while this percentage remains constant, the absolute number of homosexual individuals grows and needs a legal framework in which to exist.

 

[Arkansan]

I’d disagree with such an interpretation, for when procreation leads to overpopulation, it does more bad than good.

This is completely irrelevant to what the purpose of sexuality is. If (granting the factual premise) there is too much procreation going on, the solution is to discourage sexual activity. The intrinsic evil of using sexuality for reasons other than procreation is not dependent on the prudential consideration of whether or not procreation should occur.

However, under a controlled scenario where procreation is very unlikely to occur, such sexual acts would not be wrong, would they?

Sex exists for the purpose of procreation. If it would be wrong to procreate in a given situation, then it would be wrong to have sex.

 

[Arkansan]

Also, as a general point, the Church holds that the moral law can be known through natural reason. However, it is not possible without revelation to know the whole natural law easily, certainly, and without admixture of error. That a given natural law argument is not fully convincing to you on its own does not invalidate the Church’s position.

 

[pocaracas]

This is completely irrelevant to what the purpose of sexuality is. If (granting the factual premise) there is too much procreation going on, the solution is to discourage sexual activity. The intrinsic evil of using sexuality for reasons other than procreation is not dependent on the prudential consideration of whether or not procreation should occur.

Perhaps the purpose of sexuality is not subject to such black&white good&bad rules and must be encompassed by an overarching purpose of mankind, surpassed by a purpose of life and, eventually by the purpose of the Universe.
It is in favor of the good of mankind and life on Earth that human population is kept under control.
History tells us that it is unwise to suggest that such control can be achieved through refrain from sexual intercourse, so alternatives must be employed.

Sex exists for the purpose of procreation. If it would be wrong to procreate in a given situation, then it would be wrong to have sex.

Anyone who enjoys sex can tell you how impossible that is to apply on a populational level.

 

[Benadam]

I’d disagree with such an interpretation, for when procreation leads to overpopulation, it does more bad than good. And humanity has reached that stage…

This is a false premise and emerges from a conceptualization of procreation unregulated by the Marital bond. The marital bond is formed with the intent of creating a maternal environment. This bond is natural and essential to human life and should be the primary structure of the larger societies that extend from it. When the primary structure of human society is natural to human life, the larger societies that extend from it will naturally conform to the environments that it lives in and supports it. The reason there seems to be a population problem is because so many humans enter into life outside the kind of support system that would exist if the marital bond, and the family that is natural to man were being lived, and the societies in the world were extended from it

 

[pocaracas]

No.
If everyone on Earth followed the marital rule and were faithful, and each married couple had 3 children, overpopulation would still become a problem.
Even knowing that some 25% of women can only bear 1 child and are practically infertile afterwards… not to mention the other 10% who are infertile from birth and the men who are to blame for 30% of all infertile couples (strangely, I couldn’t find a better statistic for men)… 3 children per fertile couple is enough to tip the scale… and we know very well that, without any control, many couples would have more than those 3… or lead a very unsatisfactory life.

 

[Benadam]

No.

If everyone on Earth followed the marital rule and were faithful, and each married couple had 3 children, overpopulation would still become a problem.

Even knowing that some 25% of women can only bear 1 child and are practically infertile afterwards… not to mention the other 10% who are infertile from birth and the men who are to blame for 30% of all infertile couples (strangely, I couldn’t find a better statistic for men)… 3 children per fertile couple is enough to tip the scale… and we know very well that, without any control, many couples would have more than those 3… or lead a very unsatisfactory life.

You do realize that human nature includes intellect? Satisfying the intellect is what makes humans truly happy and satisfying the lower faculties does not?

 

[thistle]

No.

If everyone on Earth followed the marital rule and were faithful, and each married couple had 3 children, overpopulation would still become a problem.

Even knowing that some 25% of women can only bear 1 child and are practically infertile afterwards… not to mention the other 10% who are infertile from birth and the men who are to blame for 30% of all infertile couples (strangely, I couldn’t find a better statistic for men)… 3 children per fertile couple is enough to tip the scale… and we know very well that, without any control, many couples would have more than those 3… or lead a very unsatisfactory life.

If you want to discuss overpopulation start a separate thread. It is not what this one is about.
By the way the world is not overpopulated and never will be. Do not confuse inequitable distribution of resources with overpopulation. There are enough resources for everyone!!

 

[pocaracas]

You do realize that human nature includes intellect? Satisfying the intellect is what makes humans truly happy and satisfying the lower faculties does not?

It doesn’t work in the real world.

If you want to discuss overpopulation start a separate thread. It is not what this one is about.

By the way the world is not overpopulated and never will be. Do not confuse inequitable distribution of resources with overpopulation. There are enough resources for everyone!!

It seems you’re the one who wants to discuss it.
But sure, cover your eyes all you want and keep supporting the “natural law” to its final consequences.

 

[Oxy]

Thank you to everyone who has participated. Personality, the most helpful insight for me was that which distinguished natural law from nature.