Natural Law? How does it really work?

[LiveYourLifeForGod]

Natural Law Theory is actually on of the most confusing parts of Catholic philosophy. From what I know of natural law, it basically states that things are ordered to a certain way and our actions should be in accordance with how we are ordered. A couple of questions, 1) How exactly can we know how a thing is ordered? What’s the philosophical basis for how we come to know how things are ordered? 2) How to we answer the classic objection of “You can’t derive an ought from an is”?

 

[Rhubarb]

I like how you faciscously memed the appeal to nature.

Are you looking for reasoning to fit your preconceived ideology and beliefs? Or. To shed your preconceptions and see what beliefs follow from reasoning?

If you want to know how to start dealing with the classic objection, I would recommend not behaving like that. In philosophy, there’s something called the principle of charity. Which states that in an argument, one should always try to present their opposing views in the best possible light, to ensure you’re not arguing against a strawman or red herrings. You see, ridiculing an opposing view isn’t charitable. Or is it conductive to giving it the proper critical evaluation it’s due. It’s a classic objection for a reason.

 

[adgloriam]

I like how you faciscously memed the appeal to nature.

Are you looking for reasoning to fit your preconceived ideology and beliefs? Or. To shed your preconceptions and see what beliefs follow from reasoning?

If you want to know how to start dealing with the classic objection, I would recommend not behaving like that. In philosophy, there’s something called the principle of charity. Which states that in an argument, one should always try to present their opposing views in the best possible light, to ensure you’re not arguing against a strawman or red herrings. You see, ridiculing an opposing view isn’t charitable. Or is it conductive to giving it the proper critical evaluation it’s due. It’s a classic objection for a reason.

Really good post @Rhubarb.

 

[LiveYourLifeForGod]

Wait what did I do to disrespect it? Wait what’s going on? Did i present a strawman? Isn’t that the actual objection?

 

[LiveYourLifeForGod]

Oh wait nevermind I see. Apologies for the inconsistent letter marks, I didn’t know it was offensive and disrespectful and I will edit it to correct my mistakes. Thank you.

 

[LiveYourLifeForGod]

And also to answer your first question I just wanted a much more rigorous understanding of Natural Law, which even as an old man who has converted to Catholicism many years ago (after being convinced that Catholicism is true) I still don’t know everything and just tryin’ to get by
Natural Law has always been pretty hard for me to understand, the only reason why i’ve believed it was because it was taught by the Church (to which i became convinced of Catholicism through being convinced of God’s existence, Jesus Christ’s Divinity and the Catholic Church being founded by him).

 

[o_mlly]

We are, as God’s creatures, under His Eternal Law. The Eternal Law is not directly knowable to us.

Natural Law represents those elements of the Eternal Law that can be known by right reason.

Because reason is flawed due to the Fall, God reveals His Divine Positive Law (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, the constant Traditional Teaching of His Church).

 

[Wesrock]

1. How exactly can we know how a thing is ordered? What’s the philosophical basis for how we come to know how things are ordered?

We have to gain knowledge of the thing by observation.

1. How to we answer the classic objection of “You can’t derive an ought from an is”?

Well, we’d just reject the premise. Sure, you can’t scientifically measure the qualitative ought, you can only measure the quantitative is, but that doesn’t mean that the qualitative does not exist. Reason is the only means to consider the qualitative. Basically, we’d just reject Hume’s fork here.

 

[Rhubarb]

S’all good. It wasn’t offensive, it’s just used to mock what’s being spelled out, and who might say it. Or, so the meme goes.

 

[fhansen]

Truth is most of us already obey much of the natural law spontaneously-just happens to be a pattern there, I guess -something like with other characteristics we happen to have in common such as eyes and noses and arms and legs, etc. But we’re tempted in many ways to compromise and disobey that law whereas physical qualities aren’t so easily dismissed or modified-although people are messing more and more in those areas nowadays with piercings and tattoos and sex changes et al. The underlying person stays the same while we seem to like to alter the outside sometimes, as if that really could somehow make us different.

Anyway, while most of us have a built-in aversion to murder and torture and incest etc, many have also “overcome” such aversions when there are other competing interests compelling them to do so. Or when they simply want to express their superiority or power or freedom from any authority that may seek to dictate their behavior; pride/ self-righteousness always plays some role in man’s un-righteousness (and the rest of us may even be awed by and admiring in a way of their sheer boldness and apparent freedom). Either way as moral beings (we just can’t escape this fact) we generally must feel justified in our actions, no matter how heinous they might be, before committing them, at least in that moment.

But there are seemingly less serious offenses against the natural law that more of us may tend to be more universally tempted by-and this makes us wonder if that law is truly so natural after all. Lying and lusting and maybe even a little bit of theft now and then certainly seem to be embraced by the masses to varying degrees. Marital faithfulness and honoring parents don’t have the high moral significance as they have in the past. Love and worship of God don’t come so naturally either, so what’s up with all that?

IMO the world is not innocent, simply put. The “ought” doesn’t arise out of a vacuum, nor does it come from religion only, but exists in us, in our consciences, as a challenge to our “rightness”. The rest of nature “obeys”; species are consistently true to their natures; patterns are universal within them. So, if things aren’t the way they “ought to be” now in human affairs, what could explain this-and what could rectify it?

The doctrine of Original Sin goes far in explaining the waywardness of humankind IMO, a waywardness that’s perhaps almost inevitable in a rational created being with free will. Lying, cheating, killing, etc, aren’t truly natural for man, only possible, and nonetheless widespread and more or less accepted due to our hardness, our selfishness, our “falleness”, our distance from God to put it another way. Man was made for and needs communion with God, unlike the rest of creation, in order to maintain moral integrity, not to mention the peace and happiness he’s meant to have, even if only partially in this life. Man must choose-a frightening responsibility. Just some thoughts.

 

[Magnanimity]

In answer to Q. 1, it is by observation that you determine how a thing is ordered. To use a concrete example, when Aristotle says the following, he is going from observation to general truths. Iow, he perceives what regularly happens in a specific sphere of reality and moves from many various particular instances of this same phenomenon to a generalized truth about it. “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart from the activities that produce them.” - Nicomachean Ethics, opening lines

The naturalistic fallacy is a mistake of Modernism. It is quite literally false. Put simply, how else would one derive an “ought” except by repeatedly observing what “is?” That’s where the ought comes from.

Some Christians have believed in divine-command theory—that we don’t know any moral truths until they are revealed to us by God. But there are many reasons for rejecting this theory. Not least of which is that irreligious people seem very definitely to have consciences and an ability to observe nature to derive natural laws, just as well as religious folks. Moral truths, like wisdom and scientific laws, seem built into the very fabric of the world. All of these laws are derived from observation. That is the basic thrust and claim of natural law.

 

[Rhubarb]

The Nicomachean Ethics, and pretty much everything Aristotle wrote, is the biggest stack of question begging I’ve ever studied.

I wonder if you’ve ever read Hume and Moore on this problem? Not to be accusatory because they both provide ample reasoning why what ‘is’ doesn’t correspond to how it ‘ought to be’.

I don’t want to spill a bunch of ink on it, because I don’t want to hijack the thread. But dismissing something like this so blithely is concerning. There’s logical, epistemological, and ontological problems with what you’ve said.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yep, as a phil major I had the pleasure of reading Hume, Moore, Searle and all their ilk.

But I think you’re right—to expose the absurdities of empiricism would be to hijack this thread. Feel free to start another if you want some engagement on it. :v:t3:

 

[alphonsus1]

Question 1:
We can know an act’s ordering by deducing whether or not it is deprived of a basic human good. In other words, its ability to be rightly ordered to God. Like other posters have said, reason (or the intellect), is what recognizes whether an act is in conformity with a human good.

Question 2:
Natural Law uses principles and definitions that are treated as Truths. These principles are treated in the same way as any other Truths, say mathematical truths.

 

[John_Martin]

To work with the Natural Law from a Catholic perspective it would be useful to look at the Catechism (CCC) or its Compendium as was done in a class I gave on the subject (Law and Grace | SoftVocation ). This included insights that can only come from familiarity with the likes of Thomas Aquinas to explore the CCC on this topic. It gets past cliche into explanation.

John Martin

 

[MPat]

1. How exactly can we know how a thing is ordered?

Or, in other words, “How to do science?”?

If we had very simple, very useful and very general answer, there would be no need for specialised scientists.

1. How to we answer the classic objection of “You can’t derive an ought from an is”?

There are several ways to get “ought” from “is”.

For example, we can easily get “conditional ought”. Let’s say, “Pressing button ‘Reply’ submits the post.” leads to “If you want to submit a post you should press button ‘Reply’.”. Then get “You want to submit a post.”, and you’ll get “You should press button ‘Reply’.”. Aristotle offers “You want to be happy.” as a starting point for getting an “ought” instead of “should”.

Or we can add an axiom like the one given by St. Thomas Aquinas - “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided” (https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/FS/FS094.html#FSQ94OUTP1).

The Nicomachean Ethics, and pretty much everything Aristotle wrote, is the biggest stack of question begging I’ve ever studied.

I don’t want to spill a bunch of ink on it, because I don’t want to hijack the thread. But dismissing something like this so blithely is concerning. There’s logical, epistemological, and ontological problems with what you’ve said.

Yes, dismissing Aristotle so blithely is concerning.

 

[Rhubarb]

I didn’t dismiss Aristotle. I dismissed “cos Aristotle says so” as an explanation.

 

[MPat]

I didn’t dismiss Aristotle. I dismissed “cos Aristotle says so” as an explanation.

Let’s look at what you wrote:

The Nicomachean Ethics, and pretty much everything Aristotle wrote, is the biggest stack of question begging I’ve ever studied.

That does not look like dismissing an argument to authority.

If you had quoted some other post, perhaps the things would look differently (although that still seems unlikely), but you did not quote anything.

Anyway, “cos Aristotle says so” might not be optimal, but it sure outranks “cos Rhubarb says so”.

 

[Rhubarb]

Look at what I was replying to, friend. Some context goes a long way.

Thankfully, this isn’t like reading Wittgenstein and having to try and figure out what he might have meant in a passage. I’m -telling- you what I meant.

“Cos Aristotle said so” isn’t good justification for an idea, because Aristotle’s writings generally start with a huge pile of question begging. Writings based on question begging is poor justification.

This isn’t a fiat declaration. I have presented an argument. It doesn’t have to move anyone, and people are free to argue otherwise.

 

[MPat]

Look at what I was replying to, friend. Some context goes a long way.

If your post makes no sense without the part to which you are replying, quote that part.

It is not hard. I’m doing that in this very post.

Thankfully, this isn’t like reading Wittgenstein and having to try and figure out what he might have meant in a passage. I’m -telling- you what I meant.

Yes, you are not Wittgenstein.

But not necessarily in the way that you wanted.

When we’re dealing with a philosopher who has a reputation, we can assume that “try[ing] and figur[ing] out what he might have meant in a passage” is likely to be worth an effort. We can assume that he meant something worth finding out.

But random anonymous users like you or me, having no reputation, do not get this assumption for free.

Even if it looks like you really want it.

“Cos Aristotle said so” isn’t good justification for an idea, because Aristotle’s writings generally start with a huge pile of question begging. Writings based on question begging is poor justification.

This isn’t a fiat declaration. I have presented an argument. It doesn’t have to move anyone, and people are free to argue otherwise.

As a matter of fact, no, you really are trying to rely on a reputation you (as an anonymous user) do not have.

Your argument is this:

1. Aristotle’s writings generally start with a huge pile of question begging. (premise)
2. Writings based on question begging is poor justification. (premise)
3. Citing Aristotle’s writings is poor justification. (from 1, 2)

And where do you get the first premise? From here:

1. User “Rhubarb” claims that “Aristotle’s writings generally start with a huge pile of question begging.” (premise)
2. User “Rhubarb” would not say something is question begging, unless it was so. (premise)
3. Aristotle’s writings generally start with a huge pile of question begging. (from 1, 2).

That is an argument from authority - yourself. And I don’t think you get to be an authority. In other words, you do not get the second premise for free, just because you want it. If you need it, prove it.

You don’t get a premise that you would recognise question begging without a mistake for free. You do not get a premise that you are perfectly honest for free. Prove them if you need them. Better yet, argue without relying on them.

After all, you do not grant similar premises for Aristotle.