How to argue Natural Law v No Harm Principle

  • Thread starter Thread starter szburrows
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

szburrows

Guest
Hi, I’m wondering how one might argue pro-natural law to someone who thinks that anything that is permissible if it can’t be proved (via science or social science consensus) to be harmful to other people. I am arguing against an atheist, so they won’t be persuaded by any idea of God.

Specifically they don’t see why Catholics are against homosexuality, so I tried to explain the viewing that it’s a philosophical argument from divine revelation / natural law. And they’re interested in any atheistic reasons to follow natural law v their “no harm” morality. And I’m kind of drawing a blank; I think they need to start from a belief in God. Is there another way to argue this? Thank you!
 
You might want to read some of Joseph Sciambra’s writings on the topic. He lived a very brutal and destructive homosexual life in San Francisco for about a decade, and almost died from it.
 
What’s this persons no harm morality? Is he arguing that homosexuality does no harm? To whom? How does he know?
 
That’s exactly it. How do we know if what we do does no harm? What is harm?
 
Thanks for your reply! It is jogging my mind now - I suppose the next step is to find out how he defines harm and show this would lead to an unworkable philosophy. I suppose this persons philosophy would devolve into a utilitarianism, which is easier to argue against. The ultimate point would be that natural law gives us a more objective basis for moral decisions, and what most people would consider less bad outcomes. [I assume this person would agree that it would be preferable to have a morality that says homosexual acts are bad than that it’s ok to kill me if it would make most people happier.]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top