C
casabolg
Guest
Just curious because all the uses I’ve seen of it make it out to be subjective in some way
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
Why subjective? If we didn’t create it, then it would only be an innate God-given aspect of our beings.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
The first principle of natural law is “Do good, and avoid evil”, lead life in accord with reason, seek your last end, purpose of life. This primary truth, according to St Thomas is self-evident, can not be invincibly unknown to anyone who has the use of reason There are other common or general principles based on the first principle. These principles can be regarded as moral axiom. They express the natural inclination man has in common, such as Preserve your own being, or even in common with animals, such as “Care for your offspring” or “Do not murder,” “Treat others with fairness,” One could hardly know the first principle, “Do good, and avoid evil,” and fail to see what is good, and what is evil is such obvious cases. It is objective, in contact with reality.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
I think reason is often the method. For instance, why would most, if not all, societies in history agree that murder is wrong? Because we can reason that it is proper to a human person to have his right to life. Is that subjective? I dunno - it withstands scrutiny when we examine the human condition.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Of course, another relevant question is who precisely defines natural law? In my studies I have seen a wide variety of descriptions.
John
John
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
For any unclear questions, if only there was a God who would promise to guide a Church on such matters…
O
oldcelt
Guest
Again…according to whom?For any unclear questions, if only there was a God who would promise to guide a Church on such matters…
John
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Catholics would claim the Church has infallibility on moral dogmatic proclamations due to the protection of the Holy Spirit. I welcome you to examime the claim or scrutinize it.
O
oldcelt
Guest
The scrutiny was done long ago, and the answers remain remarkably vague. Aquinas said to the effect that it is written on man’s heart, while Vatican II claims that that much of it is imprinted on people through preaching the Gospels and teaching.Catholics would claim the Church has infallibility on moral dogmatic proclamations due to the protection of the Holy Spirit. I welcome you to examime the claim or scrutinize it.
John
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The natural law is both. They are not mutually exclusive.
The natural law is not strictly found in religion. Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero are among others who expressed it. Since it is founded on common sense and reason, all human beings sense a natural law morality, though many do what they can get away with to avoid it, even to the extent of supposing reason can refute it.
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
As Charlemagne said the two don’t contradict. Also, it would help if you provided specific quotes.
O
oldcelt
Guest
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, as Augustine put it, since he was left out of this, “God wrote on tables of stone what, man failed to read in his heart”. If we admit to the existence of a natural law then we acknowledge that man is *bound *to it-but for some reason fails to always heed it anyway.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Interesting question.
Apparantly natural law is discernible by all men of good will and clear reason - hence objective and allegedly inhering in the object not in subjective judgements.
Unfortunately I have come across few examples where a majority of men of clear reason do actually agree.
And re those few examples where such men do in the majority agree - we seem to be dealing with analytic apriori propositions (eg all husbands are males). These are just definition words games - true, but not really predicating anything of the real world in particular.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
There is a natural inclination in nature to attain different ends or purposes. It is natural for rain to fall, disperse air and cause wind, It is natural to seek food to sustain life, to mate to bare offspring, for birds to fly, for men to think and be sociable. These laws or inclinations are stamped upon their nature (by their Creator) We observe temporal effects in creatures, and this is what is meant by “natural law”,grounded in nature. that part of the law governing non-rational creatures is the natural "physical law. Those laws governing rational creatures we call the “moral law” Man is both physical and a moral being. So these laws are objective found in the real world. The natural law is manifested to reason not by any external sign, but simply by a rational examination of nature, or human nature with all it’s parts and in particular in it’s relation to God, the Law Giver This is why it is said by reason that the natural law is written by God in the human heart(mind)
I might include by a clear understanding of natural law, one can discern what is un-natural.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
“Laws of nature” are often used to demonstrate the objectivity of “natural law”.
But they are different categories - hence the correspondence is only analogical not univocal and the equivalence is not so tight as we might at first think.
"It is natural to seek food to sustain life, to mate to bare offspring, for birds to fly, for men to think and be sociable. "
Yet there are natural examples that contradict all these assertions also. Animals seek food because it is pleasurable, not because it sustains life. There are pleasurable foods which are in fact poisonous. Some animals, like humans, naturally attempt to mate with the same sex. Some men are not sociable by nature. So where the “law”… if not in the cherry-picking mind?
Sure, its true to say that all creatures seek pleasure.
But that seems little different from saying an immovable object cannot be thwarted or all husbands are males…true but meaningless with respect to learning anything objectively new about the real world.
Y
ynotzap
Guest
Hi B.H.
Animals may seek food because it is pleasurable- but ultimately, it was programed to sustain it’s physical well-being,which is it’s existence. When an animal attempts to mate with the same sex my wife says that it’s trying to show the other animal how to do it with the opposite sex,
It is not acting from choice, but galloping harmones with no direction, perhaps an exceptional animal.
As for humans, it is a choice, but I wouldn’t say that it was according to right reason, or human rational nature, the purpose of a rational nature is to act rationally, and that for it’s well-being, which is promoted by procreation. Some men do not act sociably, but because they were designed to be sociable, and communicate because they share a common humanity, they begrudgingly are forced to communicate their unsociable dispositions with others because of their dependence. The natural law is there, because it was put there by the Eternal Law Giver, and it is intrinsically unchangeable. We have to look deep enough.
M
Michael19682
Guest
Is anyone saying that each man may define his own natural law and then that becomes natural law? After all, what is the privilege of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero etc. insofar as defining natural law? They were men like us.
Also, what evidence does a person have to know if all natural law is not contrived for the self serving purposes of those who made such; including one’s self as law maker?
I trust Jesus on this. Natural Law = you can’t avoid death in this life. Everything else is up for interpreatation.
Also, what evidence does a person have to know if all natural law is not contrived for the self serving purposes of those who made such; including one’s self as law maker?
I trust Jesus on this. Natural Law = you can’t avoid death in this life. Everything else is up for interpreatation.
F
fhansen
Guest
Natural law is a reflection of the “divine law”, Gods wisdom and will for man in regards to morality. The revealed law such as the Ten Commandments are expressions of both. What this means is that murder, adultery, theft, lying, etc are intrinsically, objectively wrong. And, generally speaking, people seem to already know this in my experience, with aversions to such things even as some may practice them often enough, whether or not their own consciences may still convict them by the act.
M
Michael19682
Guest
“Reflected” in what medium? “Reflection in” is passive, “expression through” is active.
But can you get to man’s participatory part through passive reflection, or call man “a being expressed” by God? Neither gets at man’s freewill involvement. Finally, if conscience is a part of the natural law, then how is anything absolute aside from God and his Word.
We like to think these things are agreed on by all men. I’m sure a sociologist or other scientist might very well convict us of wishful thinking especially as regards man’s natural propensities, i.e., warfare.
- Status