If the Natural Law is real

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pope_Noah_I
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pope_Noah_I

Guest
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience. Why? Apparently because their consciences are created by the culture they live in. And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
 
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience. Why? Apparently because their consciences are created by the culture they live in. And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
Because we are not existing in a vacuum and we aren’t seeing this behavior at its ‘inception.’ And ‘good conscience’ does not mean what you might think.

Suppose that for centuries, even millennia, I happen to live in a particular group which prides itself on, say, gluttony. Of course in early civilization when hunger was often a problem, having a lot of food was a good thing for your tribe. Suppose you happened to live in a very fertile area where food was easy to get. Suppose also that at various times tribes from poor areas would come to your area and try to take your food. You, being well fed, would defeat them, and you would come to feel that you were being ‘rewarded’ for having plenty of food, which would continue along with your cultural proclivity etc. to your maintaining the tradition. It wouldn’t matter that people told you ‘gluttony is bad’. . .to you, gluttony is good because you are ONLY looking at it from the cultural ingrained and GRAFTED belief that for you ‘personally’ as a tribe it is good.

You don’t know how LONG the tradition of cannibalism has existed in this group. What if that tribe had spent 40,000 years without cannibalism, then ‘developed it’ because they observed it in one man and it happened that (coincidentally) that man was a good healer, and he cured the chief of something. It could appear that the ‘cannibalism’ was the reason for this man being able to ‘cure’. Other people in the tribe could try cannibalism and (coincidentally) during the earliest times this took place the tribe could win wars, or have great crop yields, etc. and the tribe would say, “look, cannibalism is GOOD”. And then of course, add in the last 2 centuries where it seems that ‘europeans’ tried to ‘stop native culture’. . .well, the natives would off the europeans and then say, “See, our good ju-ju in cannibalism proves it is great.”

THAT is what they mean by ‘good conscience’. To them, it’s like, "We had good things happen when we were cannibals so it is a good thing to do. And our conscience is good because we have ‘proven’ it is a good thing because of the ‘good things’ that happen when we are cannibals!

Too many people think this is what a good conscience is. It is NOT. It is a RATIONALIZATION of a behavior, often a bad behavior, because the behavior appears to offer ‘dividends’. IOW, they ignore the true conscience–and if it has been years, decades, centuries, that true conscience is buried very deep–because the false idea is a reward for them.

These are the people who would say that in good conscience they can fornicate because they ‘mean well’. Or that they can lie because “it will save a life.” This is NOT a good conscience at all!
 
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience. Why? Apparently because their consciences are created by the culture they live in. And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
:hmmm: “Take this and eat it, it is my body…” 👋 This issue you speak of is one of interpretations of Natural Law not existence of Natural Law.
 
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience.
Do they? Do you have any evidence of that? Going on this no cannibalism took place, or, if it did, it certainly wasn’t a matter of “good conscience” but an abhorrent aberration, a deliberate contradiction to natural moral law.
 
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience. Why? Apparently because their consciences are created by the culture they live in. And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
Most cultures see murder, rape, theft, dishonesty and excessive greed as moral wrongs to some degree. I also don’t think men are “inclined towards murder.” Most people are not killers or predators under normal circumstances. Likewise, homosexuality is rather uncommon. Even the most generous statistics seem to place it at a little under 10 percent of the population.

If we had such specific rules written into our DNA such as " rest on the Sabbath" or “don’t cheat on your spouse” that would undo the concept of free will. It’s one thing to give a man an inclination, it’s another to program specific actions into him.
 
…then why isn’t morality in every culture the same, and why doesn’t it cover all aspects of ethical behavior? For example, in the Congo, men practice cannabalism in good conscience. Why? Apparently because their consciences are created by the culture they live in. And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
Natural law is real. People try to ignore it both in contradiction to cultural norms and in the practice of cultural norms. You can rationalize it, repress it, and run from it, but you cannot escape it.
 
Slowlearner
And if the natural law inclines men towards, say, murder, wy doesn’t it incline men towards resting on the Sabbath or restraining from adultery or homosexuality?
It doesn’t incline anyone to commit any crime, much less murder.
**God as the source of morality (EWTN)
Answer by Richard Geraghty on Dec-15-2006: **
God is the source of morality in two ways. The first is as the Creator of man as a creature of reason, which is the same as a creature with a conscience. Thus man has a natural knowledge of the basics of right and wrong. He knows that he should honor God and not create idols, that he should respect his neighbors and not lie, cheat or murder them, that men and women should be faithful to each other in marriage and not mess around with adultery and fornication, that parents should use their authority over their children for the sake of the children and not their own sakes. These are the natural laws which men know because they are human. This does not mean that they follow this knowledge because, having free will, they often spend a great deal of their lives in not following these norms but insist on inventing rules of their own. They know but they do not do and so become blind and stupid, as St. Paul says in his letter to the Romans in chapters one to three.

The natural law and morality
tothesource.org/3_17_2010/3_17_2010_printer.htm

The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape.
Our status as the only rational, moral animal is the source of our natural belief that human beings are distinct from other animals. That is the origin of all laws against murder, for the notion of “murder” assumes that killing a human being is fundamentally distinct from killing a chicken, and that the murderer actually had the moral freedom not to kill (otherwise, jailing the man would make as much sense as jailing the knife). Let go of this fundamental assumption, and soon killing anything will be considered murder (as some animal rights activists maintain) and a murderer’s DNA will be the only culprit (as genetic determinists maintain).
This status as rational animal is exactly what is meant by the assumption that human beings are made in the image of God. The Ten Commandments are, in moral substance, not unique to the ancient Jews. As C. S. Lewis noted in his Abolition of Man, the moral commands to honor parents, not murder, not lie, not steal, and so on, are found everywhere. They are found everywhere because they arise from human nature. To ignore them, or manipulate them, can only result in the destruction of human nature, the Abolition of Man.
Dr. Benjamin Wiker
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top