Natural law and morals being absolute

[Poof]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

 

[David_Alexander]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

I think The Ten Commandments stand the test of time and probably sum up much of what has been referred to as natural law.

But this is an interesting question, and one that I am sure many of us have pondered. The issue is further confused by state laws and cultural ‘norms’. So for example, if you grow up seeing people being tortured and the government allows/endorses it, that kind of social proof/backing might allow you to override your better instincts/judgment.

One really simple and less challenging example for me is McDonalds. I know it’s not healthy, I know the farming methods are probably not great for the animals slaughtered to serve cheap produce. But lots of people eat it, so occasionally so do I (against my better judgment).

Or abortion. If you grow up seeing many people do it, and it’s legal, then that kind of social proof/backing again might allow you to override your better instincs/judgment.

Hope that makes sense and is helpful?

 

[Poof]

Hey David, I’ll reply to you tomorrow. It’s late from where I live and my mom wont have any of it. Good night!

 

[Scoobyshme]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

1. Natural Law is basically the “owner’s manual” for humanity. It’s how we were designed to operate. Let me explain via a simple example. You have a car (I assume). Your car has an owner’s manual (probably in the glove box). That manual was created by the car manufacturers to explain how this car was designed to operate. For example, it says you are supposed to put unleaded gasoline in the tank as fuel. But, suppose, one day, you decided, in all sincerity, that you thought putting water in your gas tank would be better for your car. That you knew better than the manufacturer. Maybe you thought your car’s manufacturer was in league with the big oil companies to make you buy expensive gas, when in fact, you could just use water. What’s going to happen when you fill your gas tank with water? You’re going to be a pedestrian! Your car will no longer operate! Why? Because it wasn’t designed to operate that way! Similarly, God has provided us with a Natural Law that says how we were designed to operate. Deviate from that law and there will eventually be problems! So, you might ask, where is this Natural Law? Well, the summary of this Natural Law is the 10 Commandments.
2. How can morals be absolute, etc.? Let’s take another simple example. We know, can can prove, that 2 + 2 = 4. Right? No matter what culture we live in, no matter what level of education anyone may or may not have, 2 + 2 = 4. It’s an absolute. It does not require that anyone know about or believe that 2 + 2 = 4. It just IS. The same holds true for the moralities handed to us by God. They just ARE, regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or follows them. Now, let’s take this one step further. What about culpability with regard to moral laws? Is God going to hold someone accountable for breaking one of His moral laws if they never heard about it, or it never occurred to them? No! Why? Because that would be unjust. The absolute truth of a moral law should not be confused with whether any particular individual in any particular case is personally culpable. Big difference there.
3. I’m not sure what you mean by this question. Can you elaborate?

 

[David_Alexander]

No problem! Rest well.

To add to what I wrote above about social proof, another way of looking at it can be peer pressure or simply getting desensitized.

For example, in Nazi Germany, ordinary people became capable of extraordinarily terrible things. I’m not just talking about soldiers, but policemen etc.

This shows how far our natural sense of morality can be distorted by societal or cultural factors. But it does not mean that natural sense of morality disappears.

One example I read was some ordinary Germans who were ordered to kill everyone in a Jewish settlement. One of the guys doing this went around houses with his partner, and he insisted on shooting the children after his partner had shot the mothers. The reason for this was that he felt shooting the children was merciful as they had already lost their mothers.

This kind of justification (twisted as it may seem) reveals a sense of morality attempting to surface even in such an horrendous situation.

The fact is most of us thankfully do not live in Nazi Germany, so we should have an easier time being in touch with and abiding by our natural sense of what is right.

 

[Corki]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

Natural law is the “built in” component from which morals flow. Natural law is not the same as morals.

Take your abortion example. The natural law is that parents protect and value their children. The cultural moral norms are **how **the parents of a given culture protect their children. I don’t know of any culture that promotes or encourages abortion although there are governments that do. When a government is accepting of abortion, it is not because that culture does not value the life of its children, it is **in spite of **the culture’s valuing of the lives of its children.

In modern times, the moral evil of killing ones own child is sometimes set against some other good. This is the classic application of “lesser of two evils” applied in a very twisted way. But even in cultures that have developed a laxer approach to protecting children vis a vis personal gains, they still value children in the abstract. No culture could survive if it didn’t recognize the need for children to keep the society going.

The same applies to medieval torture. It wan’t that the culture thought that torture was “good” but it was an evil that was tolerated as the lesser of two evils - the greater evil being to allow treason to go unchecked.

 

[Godfollower]

What you’ve raised deals with the modern idea that right and wrong can somehow be different in different societies in different places and at different times. If you aren’t careful with how you describe moral issues, there can appear to be some truth in that idea – for example, is it moral to eat finger foods with your left hand? Not in some areas of the world!

But that’s only because of careless use of language. The truth is that right and wrong are always the same, from place to place and across time. A particular concrete expression of right and wrong might seem to change, but that is always because of sloppy descriptions or misuse of language.

In the past, some Catholic bishops have said that it was immoral for Christian women to wear their hair long. At other times and in other places, some Catholic bishops said that it was immoral for Christian women to wear their hair short. Both sets of bishops were correct, but right and wrong didn’t change. What did? The meaning society set on women’s hair lengths. At the time of those discussions, prostitutes were known by the length of their hair (in some places at some times, prostitutes wore long hair; in other places at other times, they wore short hair).

The true right and wrong was: Christians don’t pretend to be prostitutes, because prostitution is immoral.

But someone reading the two different sets of bishops’ writings might think that right and wrong had changed, at least as applied to hair length.

Right and wrong are absolute; they do not change according to the circumstances. It is always wrong to commit murder; it is always wrong to commit adultery; it is always wrong to steal. Different cultures can set standards for cultural things (appropriate hair length, dress and nudity standards, which hand(s) to use for eating food, and so on), but they cannot change right and wrong. The Nazis’ treatment of Jews and other minorities was wrong, no matter what the individual persons involved thought, and no matter what society taught. A man who beats his wife is wrong, even if she agrees that he has that right and even if he has a religious book to back him up. Torture is evil, no matter who says otherwise. Slavery was wrong, even though society said otherwise.

God is good; evil is opposed to Him. And God does not change.

 

[sedonaman]

…2) How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things?

Are morals subject to a vote? Here we touch on something that is crucial to answer this question, i.e., truth.

Polylogism
solohq.com/Objectivism101/Irrational_Polylogism.shtml

Polylogism is the belief that different people or groups have different forms of logic. Since logic is the art of non-contradiction, polylogism can have only two possible meanings. Either reality is different for each group, or logic is a loose term for method of acquiring knowledge. The latter, though, is not how it is used. Those speaking of polylogism state that the conclusions from the different logics are different. This means that although they both claim to be methods of acquiring knowledge, the truth of the knowledge is different for different groups. This can mean only that reality is different for the different groups.

Polylogism is an absurd idea. It hides behind a more realistic idea, though. People can acquire knowledge in different ways. There are various methods one can use in approaching truth. Some of these methods are legitimate while others are not. Polylogism pretends to encompass the legitimate methods by claiming different cultures are more prone to using particular methods.

This is just camouflage. Polylogism is nothing but social subjectivism. It claims that knowledge is whatever you want it to be, but applies it to groups. [It says that] Cultures, tribes, or races are the deciders of truth, and reality conforms to their views. What’s true for a Greek philosopher is not [necessarily] true for an Eastern philosopher. This does not mean that the two believe different things. It means that the two are both right, even though they contradict one another. It is a denial of the Law of Identity.

Polylogism is not a philosophy or an epistemological theory. It is an attitude of narrow-minded fanatics, who cannot imagine that anybody could be more reasonable or more clever than they themselves. Nor is polylogism scientific. It is rather the replacement of reasoning and science by superstitions. It is the characteristic mentality of an age of chaos.

Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people?

That’s what I like: rule by bumper-sticker slogan. Every law ever passed represents someone’s idea of what you and I should or should not do. Besides, is each generation to start from zero and design its own society from scratch? If you made a mistake, wouldn’t you help your children not make the same one?

But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.

Some acts are morally wrong even though the perpetrator might be ignorant of the fact.

 

[Nate13]

To start I assume you have read the Catechism on the subject correct?

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

Natural law is a recognition that we have been created in God’s image and likeness. We are not created like just anything, we are created in God’s image. That is something objective. Mankind has been created in the image of the Trinity which is a family. Its not a coincidence both humanity and God are in the form of a family/Trinity.

 

[jochoa]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

Excellent questions, my friend! I look forward to discussion.

1. Natural Law is the Greatest Commandments, which can be defined as: Always be and spread the means to freely be perfectly patient and kind and motivated with all the body, spirit, thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the unbreakable peace and happiness of every relationship and the self. Every factor of every single action can be assessed as either in or out of accordance with the Greatest Commandments. Every factor that is in accordance will generate greater peace and happiness in society, whereas every factor that is out of accordance will contribute distress, unhappiness and misery in society.
   You are correct, in that this is the knowledge of what is righteous and unrighteous that is engraved on every person’s heart.
2. The main concept to understand how morals are absolute, but have developed over the years and cannot be forced is:
   a. Given that we are to freely choose to Love as God Loves, we are created ignorant. Since we are ignorant, we have to develop our understandings of unchanging law over time.
   b. Since we are to freely choose to be, we are to allow others to freely choose to be.
3. Here are two concepts:
   a. Given we all try to fulfill various wants, therefore we all desire happiness, where happiness ranges from contentment to intense joy. And in order to experience contentment, one must be free from disturbance or at peace. Given we live in a world in which mistakes of impatience. unkindness, and meanness occur, one must learn to react with patience and kindness to restore the peace in society. And in order to experience level of happiness, one must be kind.
   Therefore, universally the greatest actions in life to master are patience and kindness. Since the first declaration of this is made by the First Book of Corinthians 13:4 and 13, it’s author should be credited. The writer gave all credit to God as the author, therefore God exists.
   b. What is stronger than the force of gravity? The force of the Holy Spirit. To test this out: Take something valuable to a person, and ask the person to drop it from a distance as to which it is known that when the item hits the ground, it will break. Then ask yourself, did the item ever hit the ground? Although gravity was acting on the item suspended above the ground, the force of the Holy Spirit is stronger than gravity, which did not allow the item to fall to the ground.

Thoughts?

 

[fhansen]

1. What is natural law? - from what I know it’s the knowledge between right and wrong that is engraved in every person’s heart. Is this correct?
2. How can morals be absolute when there are cultures that accept different things? For example, one culture accepts abortion in every form while another condemns abortion unless it was an unwanted pregnancy. Also, there is a saying where we cannot push modern morals on (insert previous generation) people? But morals are absolute, thus they are unchanging, yet, back in the middle ages, torture as a means of extracting confessions was practically accepted in every society while today such a view would receive much opposition.
3. How does the argument from morality work?

Thanks.

That’s the reason fro the doctrine of Original Sin. In essence it means that 1) absolute objective morality exists, and 2) man is free to break from absolute objective morality and create his own morality, which he did, by disobeying God, the creator of absolute objective morality.

 

[Poof]

Okay, I’m more than satisfied with the replies . Thanks a lot guys.