How is purpose found out in Natural Law?

[Blue_Horizon]

Hi B.H.
Animals …sustain it’s physical well-being,which is it’s existence.

Yes this is a law of nature…creatures that don’t nourish die. Rocks fall.
Nothing to do with Natural Law from what I can see.

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.

Yes, all very natural…that is the point I am making.
You seemed to be saying same sex was un-natural?

As for humans, it is a choice

Not sure why this is important for your argument.
If humans choose to follow what comes naturally then most will engage in hetero sex, others same sex and others…lets not go there.

Obviously nature makes sex pleasureable for a good reason…if it wasn’t then the human race would be far less likely to regenerate by the looks of it.

…but I wouldn’t say that it was according to right reason, or human rational nature

Following one’s natural instincts is certainly a good starting point. We do have advantage over the animals though because pure instinct is a bit of a blunt instrument for optimal survival and some “cultivation” of our actions based on clearly foreseeable negative consequences (“right reason”?) may be helpful. Then again reason is so weak and circumstances so variable it is often impossible to come up with clear preferences between different possible outcomes.

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.

Just because somebody (Aristotle) defined man as a “social animal” that doesn’t mean its true.
Sure we can engage in rationalistic, non-falsifiable propositions that attempt to explain away the objective, contradicting examples … but then so can those who disagree with us. And this disagreement is possible because objectively it cannot be demonstrated that all men are naturally sociable.

The most we can say is that human children need to be reared until about age 11 until they can survive on their own. I wouldn’t exactly conclude from that that “all men are social animals”.

So I don’t yet understand what you mean by “natural law” yet - let alone that it is objective and seen by all sincere men of right reason.

But you have described “laws of nature” fairly well.

 

[golfcrickah]

PRISON . .

 

[ynotzap]

Yes this is a law of nature…creatures that don’t nourish die. Rocks fall.
Nothing to do with Natural Law from what I can see.

Law in the proper sense is a rule and measure of acts directing them to their proper end a physical law imposing physical necessity, and a moral law imposing moral necessity. Moral law direct free beings to act towards their end by imposing obligation on free will. Disobedience to physical laws are impossible, not so with moral laws. We observe temporal effects in creatures, grounded in nature, this is what is meant by natural law
BlueHorizon:

Yes, all very natural…that is the point I am making.
You seemed to be saying same sex was un-natural?

It is natural for animals to be moved to act by instinct and physical influences and their effects eg. chemicals, hormones etc. This does not involve rational choice, but there is physical necessity. In humans, they can act, motivated by physical influences contrary to their rational nature, same sex contrary to reason for sex, which is propagation, and contrary to the reason for the use or purpose of the organs. The means (pleasure) to the right and proper end (propagation and love) has become the purpose or end in itself. And this proves to be contrary to human nature. So it an act against natural law, and moral law, Same sex in humans is not a "natural act,’ consistent with human nature a rational one.
Blue Horizon:

Not sure why this is important for your argument.
If humans choose to follow what comes naturally then most will engage in hetero sex, others same sex and others…lets not go there.

Obviously nature makes sex pleasureable for a good reason…if it wasn’t then the human race would be far less likely to regenerate by the looks of it.

Following one’s natural instincts is certainly a good starting point. We do have advantage over the animals though because pure instinct is a bit of a blunt instrument for optimal survival and some “cultivation” of our actions based on clearly foreseeable negative consequences (“right reason”?) may be helpful. Then again reason is so weak and circumstances so variable it is often impossible to come up with clear preferences between different possible outcomes.

Agreed, Yes sex is made pleasurable for good reason, but never to be disassociated from reason in humans, but to be associated in love and responsibility (man is naturally sociable) God willed procreation absolutely, because the existence of a person, a soul and body destined to eternal life (purpose) is superior to any faults or irrationallities of that human nature.
Blue Horizon:

Just because somebody (Aristotle) defined man as a “social animal” that doesn’t mean its true.
Sure we can engage in rationalistic, non-falsifiable propositions that attempt to explain away the objective, contradicting examples … but then so can those who disagree with us. And this disagreement is possible because objectively it cannot be demonstrated that all men are naturally sociable.

The most we can say is that human children need to be reared until about age 11 until they can survive on their own. I wouldn’t exactly conclude from that that “all men are social animals”.

So I don’t yet understand what you mean by “natural law” yet - let alone that it is objective and seen by all sincere men of right reason.

But you have described “laws of nature” fairly well.

That men are sociable beings naturally is brought out by the following characteristics of human nature. Man can not take care of himself alone. The child must be cared for, brought up by parents, educated and prepared for adulthood. A solitary man can not supply these things that make up for a decent life befitting man.
His nature abhors loneliness and craves for companionship. Some solitude is good, too much can cause psychological problems and mental illness (notice all the killings going on with those having mental illness) (God said “It is not good for man to be alone”)
there is language to consider-communication with one’s fellow man. Unless man were to live a social life, speech would have no purpose
Intellectual and moral development requires communication of ideas, an exchange only possible in a society.
Even though men are fallible, and all do not possess right reason, we do possess some truth, and right reason. And by following the natural tendency to be sociable those that have can share with those that don’t have.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Law in the proper sense is a rule and measure of acts directing them to their proper end a physical law imposing physical necessity, and a moral law imposing moral necessity. Moral law direct free beings to act towards their end by imposing obligation on free will. Disobedience to physical laws are impossible, not so with moral laws. We observe temporal effects in creatures, grounded in nature, this is what is meant by natural law

It is natural for animals to be moved to act by instinct and physical influences and their effects eg. chemicals, hormones etc. This does not involve rational choice, but there is physical necessity. In humans, they can act, motivated by physical influences contrary to their rational nature, same sex contrary to reason for sex, which is propagation, and contrary to the reason for the use or purpose of the organs. The means (pleasure) to the right and proper end (propagation and love) has become the purpose or end in itself. And this proves to be contrary to human nature. So it an act against natural law, and moral law, Same sex in humans is not a "natural act,’ consistent with human nature a rational one.

Agreed, Yes sex is made pleasurable for good reason, but never to be disassociated from reason in humans, but to be associated in love and responsibility (man is naturally sociable) God willed procreation absolutely, because the existence of a person, a soul and body destined to eternal life (purpose) is superior to any faults or irrationallities of that human nature.

That men are sociable beings naturally is brought out by the following characteristics of human nature. Man can not take care of himself alone. The child must be cared for, brought up by parents, educated and prepared for adulthood. A solitary man can not supply these things that make up for a decent life befitting man.
His nature abhors loneliness and craves for companionship. Some solitude is good, too much can cause psychological problems and mental illness (notice all the killings going on with those having mental illness) (God said “It is not good for man to be alone”)
there is language to consider-communication with one’s fellow man. Unless man were to live a social life, speech would have no purpose
Intellectual and moral development requires communication of ideas, an exchange only possible in a society.
Even though men are fallible, and all do not possess right reason, we do possess some truth, and right reason. And by following the natural tendency to be sociable those that have can share with those that don’t have.

The problem is defining everything (eg “natural”, “human nature” “social” “law” etc) from an unproven and merely asserted theoretical starting definition. You are yet to demonstrate that all real world examples are agreed by reasonable men to actually match your definitions and assertions of good or bad.

Neither are you easily able to prove what human societal organization or behavior is always and everywhere good or bad independent of circumstances.

 

[Michael19682]

The problem is defining everything (eg “natural”, “human nature” “social” “law” etc) from an unproven and merely asserted theoretical starting definition. You are yet to demonstrate that all real world examples are agreed by reasonable men to actually match your definitions and assertions of good or bad.

Neither are you easily able to prove what human societal organization or behavior is always and everywhere good or bad independent of circumstances.

What is that merely asserted theoretical starting definition?

 

[ynotzap]

The problem is defining everything (eg “natural”, “human nature” “social” “law” etc) from an unproven and merely asserted theoretical starting definition. You are yet to demonstrate that all real world examples are agreed by reasonable men to actually match your definitions and assertions of good or bad.

Neither are you easily able to prove what human societal organization or behavior is always and everywhere good or bad independent of circumstances.

Though man by the use of reason is able to develop the natural law into a formal and explicit code of conduct, how many men actually do so? Unless most men do so however excellent in theory, the natural law would prove itself unfit in practice. Anyone ignorant of the natural law is excused from keeping it. If most men were in this condition, the natural law would no serve it purpose. How could it be called the natural law, if those possessing human nature were excused from it’s obligations.

On the other hand, we know a priori from the demands of the natural law itself-that it must be known sufficiently to the generality of mankind. On the other hand we know a posteriori, from experience that there is much controversy and disagreement of opinion on matters of morality, suggesting wide spread ignorance.

The problem is solved by recognizing that moral law consists of precepts of varying degrees of importance for the welfare of humanity- that the more fundamental principles of the natural law can not be invincibly unknown by normal mature persons, although reasoned conclusions derived from them can be.

St.Thomas says: There are common precepts known to all that belong to the natural law. As to the common principles the natural law in it’s universal meaning can not be blotted out in any way from the human heart. But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, as reason in hindered by concupiscience or some passion, but as to the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out by evil persuasion, vicious actions, corrupt habits as among some men, theft and unnatural vices…were not esteemed sinful
The more general the principle are, the more impossible it is for them to be unknown. The more particular and determined they become, the more possibilitly there is for ignorance and deception. The first principle of the natural law which in the practical field correspond to the principle of contradiction in the speculative field. The precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason what the first principle of demonstration are to the speculative reason THEY ARE SELF EVIDENT (they shine by their own light, no need to demonstrate or reason)

(continued next post)

 

[ynotzap]

continued:
St. Thomas: That which first falls under apprehension is being, the understanding of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Therefore the first indemonstrable principle is that "the same thing can not be affirmed and denied at the same time, which is based on the notion of being and not-being: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaphysics lV (Aris: lV, ch 23, 1005b 29) Now as being is the first thing that falls under the apprehension absolutely, so good is the first thing that falls under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action( since every agent acts for an end, which has the nature of good. Consequently, the first principle in the practical reason is one founded in the nature of good, namely, that good is that which all things seek after. Hence this the first precept of law, that good is to be done and promoted, and evil is to be avoided. All other precepts of the natural law are based on this; so that all the things which the practical reason naturally apprehend as man’s good belong to the precepts of the natural law under the form of things to be done or avoided.

this principle can be stated invarious ways: Do good and avoid evil, lead a life in accord with reason, seek you last end. This primary truth which as St.Thomas says, is self-evident cannot be invincibly unknown to anyone who has the use of reason at all.

There is another principle I would like to inject, and that is “what ever is objectively conducive to the well being of man, is good, and right, and what ever is not objectively conducive to the well being of man is bad and wrong.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What is that merely asserted theoretical starting definition?

Not sure why you don’t understand…what do you think I am saying?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Though man by the use of reason is able to develop the natural law into a formal and explicit code of conduct, how many men actually do so…

Y I believe you are just arguing in circles from mere prescriptive assertion rather than providing hard empirical evidence for your propositions.

How do you propose that we know who has right reason and who has wrong reason when wise men disagree on just about any significant applied moral proposition?

 

[ynotzap]

Y I believe you are just arguing in circles from mere prescriptive assertion rather than providing hard empirical evidence for your propositions.

How do you propose that we know who has right reason and who has wrong reason when wise men disagree on just about any significant applied moral proposition?

Don’t you think God knows this, there are no infallible men, but He did give the Christian Catholic Church the gift of infallibility when teaching faith and morals, and men of great Wisdom and knowledge who show a high degree of right-reason,and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not only that do you think that God left men to flounder without some natural help to find Him? Would this be just? There are self-evident principles, with God as their author, so even if one didn’t have the grace of conversion, he would still find some evidence of the truth, after all what is the natural appetite of appentency for the mind, if it isn’t truth. Would God frustrate men who have sincerety of heart in their efforts to know the truth.The man who has right reason can experience confirmation from objective reality, things that exist, and self-evident principles, coming from their Author.

 

[ynotzap]

correction: should read " the object of appetency for the mind is truth. Did every thing you learned was based solely on your experimentation and observation, rather than theory and information from others?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t you think God knows this, there are no infallible men, but He did give the Christian Catholic Church the gift of infallibility when teaching faith and morals, and men of great Wisdom and knowledge who show a high degree of right-reason,and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not only that do you think that God left men to flounder without some natural help to find Him? Would this be just? There are self-evident principles, with God as their author, so even if one didn’t have the grace of conversion, he would still find some evidence of the truth, after all what is the natural appetite of appentency for the mind, if it isn’t truth. Would God frustrate men who have sincerety of heart in their efforts to know the truth.The man who has right reason can experience confirmation from objective reality, things that exist, and self-evident principles, coming from their Author.

So reason is not the final arbiter of what you call objective “natural law” but rather some sort of subjective feeling that tells us we are right and sincere intelligent persons who see things differently are wrong?
I think this argument is built on sand.

All humans seek the good is certainly self evident principle but is meaningless when making a concrete moral decision.
Me and my brother have the same parent is also self evident.
But meaningless because it doesn’t help me know if that guy over there is actually my father’s son does it. That is a different sort of truth which requires empirical data - eg a dna test.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

correction: should read " the object of appetency for the mind is truth. Did every thing you learned was based solely on your experimentation and observation, rather than theory and information from others?

If truths one initially takes on faith find no clear empirical vindication over time a wise person will come to regard them not as certain but merely probable. And the greater the empirical dissonance or ambiguity the lower the probability. Do you not agree?

 

[ynotzap]

So reason is not the final arbiter of what you call objective “natural law” but rather some sort of subjective feeling that tells us we are right and sincere intelligent persons who see things differently are wrong?
I think this argument is built on sand.

And I think your interpretation is built on sand, And maybe you ought to advise those that believe the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it wrong, when they wrote " We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT( that Nature, and the God of Nature) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. God is the final arbiter, the Creator of all reality. It is not some subjective feeling that tells us that, but right reason nor does it depend on one’s subjective opinions.

 

[ynotzap]

If truths one initially takes on faith find no clear empirical vindication over time a wise person will come to regard them not as certain but merely probable. And the greater the empirical dissonance or ambiguity the lower the probability. Do you not agree?

I think a truly wise man would understand what faith or the meaning of faith implies. Is it belief without seeing, is it reasonable to believe without seeing. Does it oppose reason just because we don’t fully understand it. Does it have purpose, and what is that purpose, or might be that purpose? Does it contain mystery? Why was the Faith taken on initially, because it made a lot of sense. Did one recognize some good reason at first? I would say it depends on the Faith, and what it truly teaches, and if the teachings are true, then sound the teachings. One of the teachings of Christianity is that faith is not a matter of reasoning, but taking the words of it’s Founder, put them into practice, and experience the certainty, the confirmation of the truths of the faith. Faith in Christ is a gift, not of reason, although it doesn’t conflict with reasoning, conflictions are apparent, but of the reality of “Grace” Personally, I experienced confirmation, but not without trial, long trial. There are many discouraging factors in life, but I understood that, but I was sustained, and it became clear to me who my enemy was, not by reason, although it made plenty of sense, but ultimately by Faith in Christ, a personal encounter, and and a long encounter with my unrecognized enemy.

 

[ynotzap]

I think a truly wise man would understand what faith or the meaning of faith implies. Is it belief without seeing, is it reasonable to believe without seeing. Does it oppose reason just because we don’t fully understand it. Does it have purpose, and what is that purpose, or might be that purpose? Does it contain mystery? Why was the Faith taken on initially, because it made a lot of sense. Did one recognize some good reason at first? I would say it depends on the Faith, and what it truly teaches, and if the teachings are true, then sound the teachings. One of the teachings of Christianity is that faith is not a matter of reasoning, but taking the words of it’s Founder, put them into practice, and experience the certainty, the confirmation of the truths of the faith. Faith in Christ is a gift, not of reason, although it doesn’t conflict with reasoning, conflictions are apparent, but of the reality of “Grace” Personally, I experienced confirmation, but not without trial, long trial. There are many discouraging factors in life, but I understood that, but I was sustained, and it became clear to me who my enemy was, not by reason, although it made plenty of sense, but ultimately by Faith in Christ, a personal encounter, and and a long encounter with my unrecognized enemy.

In addition, maybe it’s too much dependence on self, and reason, and not enough on Faith. It is by Faith, which comes through Jesus Christ, and not by reason, or human effort, so no one will claim what belongs to Him, our salvation and He is to be pre-eminent in all things.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And I think your interpretation is built on sand, And maybe you ought to advise those that believe the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it wrong, when they wrote " We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT( that Nature, and the God of Nature) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. God is the final arbiter, the Creator of all reality.

You have yet to demonstrate, when people disagree over what is self-evident, how we know who has right reason and who does not.

Many in the South did not agree that all men are created equal.
Perhaps the main reason you believe this is self-evident is because the Union won and you have been indoctrinated in that belief since early schooling in their system?

Don’t you find it ironic that “women” were not included in the Declaration of Independence?

It is not some subjective feeling that tells us that, but right reason nor does it depend on one’s subjective opinions.

Yet that subjective feeling is what you just argued last post as a confirmation of “reason” being right.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

In addition, maybe it’s too much dependence on self, and reason, and not enough on Faith. It is by Faith, which comes through Jesus Christ, and not by reason, or human effort, so no one will claim what belongs to Him, our salvation and He is to be pre-eminent in all things.

Yes I agree. We know our ethical principles are true more by certain faith and not by probable reason and your seemingly subjective understanding of natural law. That is the point I am making.

 

[ynotzap]

You have yet to demonstrate, when people disagree over what is self-evident, how we know who has right reason and who does not.

Life is one of those natural rights- a right to life is one of the big disagreements among many( reasonably assuming among women) a baby is considered by some to be a “parasite” and not a human in it’s development stages. How would right reasoning answer this problem. I will quote an actual event: According to one individual, the Bible defines life when a baby draws it’s first breath. President Clinton was advised by his spiritual counselor Rev.W.O Vought that life is connected to the moment when one is born and takes it’s first breath,(Time issue 5-9-93)
Neither statements attribute life to that special imminent activity that manifests it’s real presence by the physical effects it is causing eg. the growth, and development of the fertilized ovum, the conceptus. Why is life being confused with one of it’s functions “breathing”? Human’s beget humans is a self-evident truth, and there is no need to rationalize. It goes without saying that a human is not all that he can be at birth, he is a creature of time and change, this is confirmed by human experience. (objective) He is not all he can be at one time, but his potentials are fulfilled in stages. He has a becoming nature, is not the I am. Life perfects man’s existence physically, not necessarily morally, because that requires his free will. This is right reasoning because it agrees with objective reality, not one’s subjective reasoning. It is also confirmed in Metaphysics by St.Thomas’ cosmological argument of cause and effect,self-evident principles, psychology of life, the nature of the soul. If you are of the opinion that it isn’t true and just subjective thinking, prove it. It has nothing to do with feelings either.
BlueHorizon:

Many in the South did not agree that all men are created equal.
Perhaps the main reason you believe this is self-evident is because the Union won and you have been indoctrinated in that belief since early schooling in their system?

I believe it because I recognize truth in the statements, Inalienable rights are not renounceable, they can neither be taken away, nor given away legitimately, because they are necessary to attainment of man’s end or the fulfillment or a moral duty eg.such is the right to life. Jefferson was considering the common humanity when he said, "all men are created equal, and they are in their nature, the human species, rational animals. It is obvious that there are particular differences eg. talent, intelligence, size, so even though we share a common humanity, we are individually unique. He wasn’t addressing this uniqueness, he was using the word "all- a universal application.
Blue Horizon:

Don’t you find it ironic that “women” were not included in the Declaration of Independence?

I find this a dangerous leading question that could get me into a lot of trouble especially when I consider the “Supreme Court” and it latest ruling, on same sex marriage. In my book it doesn’t show me much.
Blue Horizon:

Yet that subjective feeling is what you just argued last post as a confirmation of “reason” being right.

To the best of my knowledge, the question or reference to "subjective feelings ’ comes from you and not me, if I made reference to subjectivity, I would emphasize subjective thought, not feeling, I don’t put much stock in feelings to reach the truth.

 

[ynotzap]

Yes I agree. We know our ethical principles are true more by certain faith and not by probable reason and your seemingly subjective understanding of natural law. That is the point I am making.

What is your understanding of “natural law”, or do you believe their is no natural law? And you seem convinced that my understanding of nature law is subjective, how?