Moral dilemma.

  • Thread starter Thread starter UnityofTrinity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Betterave said:
So what? Do you think absolutists deny this? Can you name one who does?

It’s not consistent with your claim that ‘natural’ simply means ‘occurring in nature.’
Click to expand...
Ha - I never said that one did. I was commenting on the dictionary definition.

Natural meaning existing in nature - It’s part of the definition 🤷

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=natural
Adjective
Click to expand...
Code: 
* S: (adj) natural (in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature) "a very natural development"; "our natural environment"; "natural science"; "natural resources"; "natural cliffs"; "natural phenomena"
* S: (adj) natural (existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation) "a natural pearl"; "natural gas"; "natural silk"; "natural blonde hair"; "a natural sweetener"; "natural fertilizers"
* S: (adj) natural (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical) "a perfectly natural explanation"
Click to expand...
 
jonfawkes said:
Kant

Preservation (procreation) is the “ends of humanity” - if it contrary to the “ends of humanity” it is immoral.
Click to expand...
You’re telling me you think Kant is a natural law theorist??

In any case, it’s perfectly obvious that you have straw-manned Kant here. He does not say what you attribute to him.
 
jonfawkes said:
Ha - I never said that one did. I was commenting on the dictionary definition.
Click to expand...
Lol! Irrelevant commentaries on irrelevant dictionary definitions are really not going to be helpful at this point, I think.
Natural meaning existing in nature - It’s part of the definition 🤷
Click to expand...
“in” and “in accordance with” (definitions 2 and 1, respectively) are very different concepts - do you get that? Your pretending that definition 2 is the one which applies in natural law discourse is… simply ridiculous.
 
Betterave said:
“in” and “in accordance with” (definitions 2 and 1, respectively) are very different concepts - do you get that? Your pretending that definition 2 is the one which applies in natural law discourse is… simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation) “a natural pearl”; “natural gas”; “natural silk”; “natural blonde hair”; “a natural sweetener”; “natural fertilizers”
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical) “a perfectly natural explanation”
 
jonfawkes said:
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation) “a natural pearl”; “natural gas”; “natural silk”; “natural blonde hair”; “a natural sweetener”; “natural fertilizers”
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical) “a perfectly natural explanation”
Click to expand...
dude, those are definitions 2 and 3. check your original post.
 
jonfawkes said:
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation) “a natural pearl”; “natural gas”; “natural silk”; “natural blonde hair”; “a natural sweetener”; “natural fertilizers”
  • S: (adj) natural (existing in or in conformity with nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical) “a perfectly natural explanation”
Click to expand...
And?:confused:
 
davidv said:
You have defined natural law as something that it is not. Then you argue against the meaning thinking you are rebutting what has been presented. Yours is a classic strawman fallacy.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Click to expand...
That’s correct. And the sad thing is that jon is stubbornly insisting that his silly straw man version of ‘natural law’ is accurate. Not giving any reasons in support of his silly view. Simply insisting that it’s right. 🤷
 
jonfawkes said:
I know what the strawman fallacy is - spell out how I misrepresented natural law.
Click to expand...
If you know what one is why do you keeping using them? See post #195 for the correct definition of Natural Law as it applies to morality.
 
jonfawkes said:
Right it clearly states - “existing in”
Click to expand...
Are you serious??? You are referring to irrelevant definitions! Definition 1, which you chose to omit for some reason :cool:, says:

S: (adj) natural (in accordance with nature; relating to or concerning nature) “a very natural development”; “our natural environment”; “natural science”; “natural resources”; “natural cliffs”; “natural phenomena”

It does NOT say “existing in.”

This definition above is inadequate for the purposes of understanding natural law theory, but it clearly shows that your construal of natural law is a silly straw man based on fixing on an irrelevant secondary definition of ‘natural’ and applying it stupidly, where it obviously doesn’t belong.
 
davidv said:
If you know what one is why do you keeping using them? See post #195 for the correct definition of Natural Law as it applies to morality.
Click to expand...
The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
Click to expand...
Where am I misrepresenting this?

homosexuality occurs in the nature of humans, as does left handness and dwarfism etc, which are moral and immoral ? Murder, rape, stealing etc also are part of our nature. I’d say these things are immoral - wouldn’t you?

It is a bad indicator of morality 🤷
 
jonfawkes said:
Where am I misrepresenting this?

homosexuality occurs in the nature of humans, as does left handness and dwarfism etc, which are moral and immoral ? Murder, rape, stealing etc also are part of our nature. I’d say these things are immoral - wouldn’t you?

It is a bad indicator of morality 🤷
Click to expand...
You forgot the rest of the definition. Like this part:
"…nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law…
Click to expand...
Given that your truncated view cannot separate moral from immoral, your view of Natural Law is faulty. Until you get this right, the rest of what you say is meaningless to this discussion.

If you say murder is immoral please show, using the definition in post #195, how it violates the principles set forth.
 
davidv said:
You forgot the rest of the definition. Like this part:
Given that your truncated view cannot separate moral from immoral, your view of Natural Law is faulty. Until you get this right, the rest of what you say is meaningless to this discussion.

If you say murder is immoral please show, using the definition in post #195, how it violates the principles set forth.
Click to expand...
I don’t claim that natural law is a good indicator of morality - why would I use it to show anything? I don’t think you can use it to show something is moral or immoral. It is a faulty model.
 
davidv said:
If you say murder is immoral please show, using the definition in post #195, how it violates the principles set forth.
Click to expand...
This might actually be a good exercise for jon. Can you answer this, jon?:

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

(According to your straw man ‘natural law’ theory, murder occurs in nature (it exists in the observable world); therefore it is natural; therefore it is not immoral. Can you try to do better than that this time?)
 
Betterave said:
This might actually be a good exercise for jon. Can you answer this, jon?:

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

(According to your straw man ‘natural law’ theory, murder occurs in nature (it exists in the observable world); therefore it is natural; therefore it is not immoral. Can you try to do better than that this time?)
Click to expand...
Again, it’s not my argument. Reread the thread. 🤷
jonfawkes said:
Because I find it faulty for basically two reasons:
  1. People bring their prejudices of what is natural and not, like the case of homosexuality. Homosexuality does occur in nature but is deemed unnatural.
Also the application isn’t applied uniformly. Like left handedness which also occurs in nature, and is a deviation from the norm and is not considered immoral although that is the reasoning for deeming homosexuality immoral.
  1. The whole of human behavior must be considered “natural” because we are part of nature. There are human behaviors that I find undesirable and immoral.
Click to expand...
 
jonfawkes said:
I don’t claim that natural law is a good indicator of morality - why would I use it to show anything? I don’t think you can use it to show something is moral or immoral. It is a faulty model.
Click to expand...
No thanks to you for not addressing my question.

Please prove that your understanding of natural law is the correct one to be applied to determining the morality of an action. In others words, prove that you haven’t used a strawman again.

I don’t think you can show that you are thinking rationally about this.
 
jonfawkes said:
Again, it’s not my argument. Reread the thread. 🤷
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top