Moral dilemma.

[jonfawkes]

That is exactly your argument, jon!

Homosexuality does occur in nature but is deemed unnatural. (And this can only be based on “prejudice.”)
[This is your straw man equivocal use of ‘nature/natural/unnatural.’]

The whole of human behavior must be considered “natural” because we are part of nature. (Implied conclusion: there is no place for appeals to “nature” in ethics.)
[Reiteration of the equivocation just mentioned.]

In other words: According to your straw man ‘natural law’ theory, murder occurs in nature (it exists in the observable world [see the definition you posted that says this]); therefore it is natural; therefore it is not immoral [or, if you prefer: therefore there is no way to determine that it is ‘unnatural’ such that ‘unnatural’ should be understood in a morally relevant sense].

Please answer this question (you claim that natural law theory is not a good way to determine the morality of an action - so, the burden of proof on you is to show that you have a clue about how natural law theory at least attempts to do this - or you can just confess ignorance and admit that your argument probably is a straw man after all ):

Is murder wrong according to natural law theory? Why is it wrong, according to this theory?

The theory of natural law assumes that our human nature aligns with the divine law. Divine law states that thou shall not murder. It is our natural predilection to strive toward life.Therefore murder is immoral.

I get - I just don’t agree with it

 

[Betterave]

Let’s see if you do get it, or if these are just trite formulas that you don’t understand:

1. The theory of natural law assumes that our human nature aligns with the divine law.

What does that that mean: “assumes,” “human nature,” “aligns”?

1. Divine law states that thou shall not murder.

Where does it “state” that?

1. It is our natural predilection to strive toward life.

What does that mean: “natural,” “predilection”?

[In case you’re tempted to, please *don’t list a bunch of dictionary definitions that may or may not be relevant.]

C. Therefore murder is immoral.

How is this conclusion supposed to follow from your three premises (assuming that the three preceding statements are supposed to be three independent premises - please clarify)?

 

[jonfawkes]

Let’s see if you do get it, or if these are just trite formulas that you don’t understand:

What does that that mean: “assumes,” “human nature,” “aligns”?

Where does it “state” that?

What does that mean: “natural,” “predilection”?

[In case you’re tempted to, please *don’t

list a bunch of dictionary definitions that may or may not be relevant.]

How is this conclusion supposed to follow from your three premises (assuming that the three preceding statements are supposed to be three independent premises - please clarify)?

What leads you to the conclusion that I don’t understand it? It’s retrofitting Christian morality to “nature” as the proponent sees fit.

To the effect of

“I know that murder is immoral. God says murder is immoral (10 commandments), God created us, He must have created our natures in accordance with his will. Therefore our nature knows God’s will because it’s inborn. We have a prediction toward life, meaning we choose life. Therefore any decision that is contrary to choosing life must be contrary to our nature, therefore immoral.”

It’s bunk. It discounts the whole of human behavior and cherry picks what it deems moral and assigns them the label “natural” and gives that label as proof it’s moral - Bunk,Bunk and more Bunk (and circular.)

 

[Betterave]

What leads you to the conclusion that I don’t understand it? It’s retrofitting Christian morality to “nature” as the proponent sees fit.

Gee, what could clue us in to the fact that you don’t understand natural law theory??

1. How about the fact that nothing you say about it is accurate or rational? Do you think Aristotle was retrofitting Christian morality to “nature” - whatever that means? Do you know when Aristotle lived? (Hint: it was B.C., and he was not a Christian!)
2. How about the fact that you claim that natural law theorist appeal to the 10 commandments to ground the immorality of murder?? Where do you get dumb ideas like this? Seriously?? What is your source? You’re just making stuff up, aren’t you?

It’s bunk. It discounts the whole of human behavior and cherry picks what it deems moral and assigns them the label “natural” and gives that label as proof it’s moral - Bunk,Bunk and more Bunk (and circular.)

Durrr… That’s supposed to be an argument? How does it “discount the whole of human behavior” or “cherrypick what it deems moral” etc.?? Seriously, jon: what wildly implausible, groundless assertions. If you seriously think stuff like that is true, please at least try to explain why you think it is true (if you gave that an honest effort, maybe you’d see for yourself how baseless your claims are).

 

[jonfawkes]

Gee, what could clue us in to the fact that you don’t understand natural law theory??

1. How about the fact that nothing you say about it is accurate or rational? Do you think Aristotle was retrofitting Christian morality to “nature” - whatever that means? Do you know when Aristotle lived? (Hint: it was B.C., and he was not a Christian!)
2. How about the fact that you claim that natural law theorist appeal to the 10 commandments to ground the immorality of murder?? Where do you get dumb ideas like this? Seriously?? What is your source? You’re just making stuff up, aren’t you?

Durrr… That’s supposed to be an argument? How does it “discount the whole of human behavior” or “cherrypick what it deems moral” etc.?? Seriously, jon: what wildly implausible, groundless assertions. If you seriously think stuff like that is true, please at least try to explain why you think it is true (if you gave that an honest effort, maybe you’d see for yourself how baseless your claims are).

This being a catholic web site I was speaking in the context of christian/catholic natural law if you’d like broaden it, I can.

 

[Betterave]

This being a catholic web site I was speaking in the context of christian/catholic natural law if you’d like broaden it, I can.

Er, right… and where do you think the “christian/catholic natural law” tradition comes from? Do you think it is independent of Aristotle?

In any case, your assertions are no more true of the “christian/catholic natural law” tradition than they are of Aristotle, so there’s no question of me wanting you to broaden your already false claim - please don’t!

Instead, why don’t you try to explain your ungrounded assertions, as I requested?