Natural law morality vs. utilitarian ethics

[Rocinante]

I can’t help wondering if you want to understand, Rocinante, or if you actually want to cling to your straw man view so that you can continue to beat it up whenever you feel like it.

That is simply not true. Consequentialists do it too - it’s inevitable. You need to try to understand that. You can verbally deny it, but the fact remains: all actions are judged by their conformity to the good; and to which good? - to the good of our human nature. If you think that consequentialists actually manage to deny this, please explain how. So far you have not.

you can always express one view in terms of the other to say that natural law theory is a consequentualism and likewise that consequentialism is a natural law theory, but the problem in doing so is that the key terms of the explanation will be understood differently in these competing moral views. natural law theory is an essentialism while consequentialism is an anti-essentialism. you need to try to understand that.

both views can use the words “human nature” but one will mean it in anti-essentialist terms as “what people tend to be like” and the other will mean it in essentialist terms as “what people truly are in spite of appearances to the contrary and to which they have a duty to conform.”

the consequentialist sees no duty for people to conform to “what people tend to be like.” why would they? instead, our knowledge of “what people tend to be like” informs what will tend to benefit them and what will tend to harm them where “harm” is not a matter of not being who we truly are but not being allowed to be as fulfilled as we can be.

rocinante

 

[Betterave]

you can always express one view in terms of the other to say that natural law theory is a consequentualism and likewise that consequentialism is a natural law theory, [who would make either of these claims and what would they mean by it?] but the problem in doing so is that the key terms of the explanation will be understood differently in these competing moral views. natural law theory is an essentialism while consequentialism is an anti-essentialism. you need to try to understand that.

But that’s not true: consequentialism is only anti-essentialist if you stipulate that it is. Is that what you want to do? If you want to do this, then stop referring to ‘consequentialism’ and refer instead to ‘anti-essentialist consequentialism.’

the consequentialist sees no duty for people to conform to “what people tend to be like.” why would they?

The natural law theorist also sees no duty for people to conform to “what people tend to be like”!!! Can you please try to understand that??

 

[Rocinante]

The natural law theorist also sees no duty for people to conform to “what people tend to be like”!!! Can you please try to understand that??

i do understand that completely. what i am saying is that the consequentialist ethicist uses the term “human nature” differently from the natural law ethicist. that is why a duty to “conform to human nature” makes perfect sense to the natural law ethicist but not to the consequentialist.

you can say that both views depend on “human nature,” but only if you account for the fact that they see human nature as very different things. one sees it as “what people tend to be like” while he other sees it as “man’s god-given intrinsic essence to which he has a duty to conform.”

 

[Betterave]

i do understand that completely. what i am saying is that the consequentialist ethicist uses the term “human nature” differently from the natural law ethicist. that is why a duty to “conform to human nature” makes perfect sense to the natural law ethicist but not to the consequentialist.

Why “not to the consequentialist”? - because the consequentialist is too dumb to understand the obvious distinction that the natural law theorist makes, or because he is being intentionally obtuse? I don’t see any other possible explanation. Do you have one? Why else would a consequentialist make the following claim:

“the consequentialist [in contrast to the natural law theorist] sees no duty for people to conform to “what people tend to be like””?

you can say that both views depend on “human nature,” but only if you account for the fact that they see human nature as very different things. one sees it as “what people tend to be like” while he other sees it as “man’s god-given intrinsic essence to which he has a duty to conform.”

No; they both see human nature as both of those things (if we allow for the fact that you have needlessly introduced some controversial elements into the latter definition, which should read: “human nature insofar as man is intrinsically subject to flourishing and languishing and is capable of practical reasoning in respect of these”).

 

[tomarin]

That’s what I mean by another victim of political correctness. Did you believe everything your professors told you?

My department was quite conservative actually. So wrong again. But don’t let that stop you from defaming people you’ve never met and know zilch about.

Who exploded this so-called myth? Can you name some names of scholars? I guess the fact that Alexander the Great, Alcibiades, the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian all had affairs with men is also part of this vast pro-gay rights conspiracy?

 

[Rocinante]

Why “not to the consequentialist”? - because the consequentialist is too dumb to understand the obvious distinction that the natural law theorist makes, or because he is being intentionally obtuse?

i guess i’m just too dumb

 

[Betterave]

i guess i’m just too dumb

I don’t believe that. You strike me as far from dumb. I think not wanting to see something is very different from being dumb (unable to see something)…although I guess it’s dumb not to accept correction, but that’s a different kind of dumb. Anyway, we’re all dumb episodically, we just need to try not to make a habit of it. I’m socially dumb, if it’s any consolation. But I really would just like an answer to my questions/arguments, not an admission that you’re dumb.

 

[John21652]

My department was quite conservative actually. So wrong again. But don’t let that stop you from defaming people you’ve never met and know zilch about.

Who exploded this so-called myth? Can you name some names of scholars? I guess the fact that Alexander the Great, Alcibiades, the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian all had affairs with men is also part of this vast pro-gay rights conspiracy?

tomarin, you will have to excuse Charlemagnes extreme scepticism regarding what is taught in Universities. I’m sure he will be very pleased to hear that you had a conservative department and so am I. I share Charlemagnes scepticism, because there are now so many university departments right around the world who now offer, in fact force, their students to accept a revisionist view of history and social theory. Marxism is blatant in many humanities faculties. It certainly was in my humanities faculty. If you wander around the threads on this forum, you will see posts where people are complaining of having to hand in to their professors and tutors work that must fit a certain world view.

With regard to the debate surrounding homosexuality in ancient greece, there was indeed one man who, more than anyone, promulgated the view that homosexuality was rife and accepted in ancient Greek society. His name is K.J.Dover and he only died earlier this year. If you go to this website, you can read how he ignited the controversy.

rictornorton.co.uk/reviews/dover.htm

If you go to this website, a very well known and highly respected Australian historian, Keith Windshuttle, gives a history of how the notion of homosexuality in ancient greece was morphed into a myth we think we know today as truth. He explains how the University gliterati, which included Oscar Wilde, interpreted the ancient history texts to suit their lifestyles. He also points out that Dover’s book was adopted by the homosexual/gay liberation movement of the 1970s.

sydneyline.com/Higher%20Sodomy.htm

Now, an American classicist and thinker by the name of Bruce Thornton has debunked Dover’s thesis. He wrote a book called Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Westview Press, 1997) and another, Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens." Cambridge University Press, 2004. He thinks we’ve all been conned.

 

[John21652]

i do understand that completely. what i am saying is that the consequentialist ethicist uses the term “human nature” differently from the natural law ethicist. that is why a duty to “conform to human nature” makes perfect sense to the natural law ethicist but not to the consequentialist.

you can say that both views depend on “human nature,” but only if you account for the fact that they see human nature as very different things. one sees it as “what people tend to be like” while he other sees it as “man’s god-given intrinsic essence to which he has a duty to conform.”

Well, I don’t think you’re dumb either, Rocinante. Very lucid in fact!

However, I may have spotted the problem of why everyone seems to be arguing past one another.Take this notion that you think that the natural law ethicist thinks their is a duty to conform to human nature. That is true. To a point. The natural Law ethicist accepts that human nature has essential elements that are never changing. This conclusion is arrived at because, empirically, certain aspects of human nature have never changed from the dawn of recorded history. Man is a social being. Man seeks security, safety, comfort. Man needs to procreate, etc, etc, etc. The Natural-Law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man’s nature. However, value here is objective, not * subjective* as it is under Utilitarianism. Utility is subjective, whimsical, arbitrary. However, human nature has indeed driven many changes in human social, legal and philosophical arrangements. But that does not mean that man’s very basic, his core essence, has altered. Human is human is human.

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, you will have to excuse Charlemagnes extreme scepticism regarding what is taught in Universities. I’m sure he will be very pleased to hear that you had a conservative department and so am I. I share Charlemagnes scepticism, because there are now so many university departments right around the world who now offer, in fact force, their students to accept a revisionist view of history and social theory. Marxism is blatant in many humanities faculties. It certainly was in my humanities faculty. If you wander around the threads on this forum, you will see posts where people are complaining of having to hand in to their professors and tutors work that must fit a certain world view.

I know it’s kind of a stereotype. But classics departments tend to be different from the rest; or at least that was my experience. My classics professors seemed interested in reintroducing classical virtues to their students, such as patriotism and honor.

Charlemagne has a bad habit of making knee-jerk assumptions about people and things that he doesn’t really know. Kind of off-putting.

Now, an American classicist and thinker by the name of Bruce Thornton has debunked Dover’s thesis. He wrote a book called Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality (Westview Press, 1997) and another, Law, Sexuality, and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens." Cambridge University Press, 2004. He thinks we’ve all been conned.

Thanks for posting that; I’ll look into his work. My view is that there is a lot of objective evidence that the Greeks and Romans did have a weird (to us) fixation on homosexual relationships but I’m willing to consider dissenting views.

 

[John21652]

I know it’s kind of a stereotype. But classics departments tend to be different from the rest; or at least that was my experience. My classics professors seemed interested in reintroducing classical virtues to their students, such as patriotism and honor.

Charlemagne has a bad habit of making knee-jerk assumptions about people and things that he doesn’t really know. Kind of off-putting.

Thanks for posting that; I’ll look into his work. My view is that there is a lot of objective evidence that the Greeks and Romans did have a weird (to us) fixation on homosexual relationships but I’m willing to consider dissenting views.

Charlemagne does not have a habit of making knee jerk reactions about things he doesn’t know. He is a very leaned man. However, this forum keeps getting hit by people who attempt to ram down our throats a revised version of history. It’s hard not to be cynical at times. A while ago one thread was hit hard by people trying their damndest to prove that homosexuality was widely accepted down through the ages, when in reality there is a whole lot of objective evidence to the contrary. The thing is, to keep it within the context of this thread topic, most successsful human societies have been the ones based on Natural Law and the Natural Law tells us that homosexuality is disordered human conduct. The ancient Greeks, the Romans and even the early European nation states frowned on what the Natural Law had to say on this issue and many others pertaining to human relations. Natural Law uses human reason to arrive at objective standards of right and wrong and subjective standards dissolve into hedonism, even under the guise of utilitarianism. It is inyteresting that your classic professors should be re-emphasising things like patriotism and honour. These are very much Natural Law tenets which fall under the banner of duty, with ought attached.

 

[tomarin]

Charlemagne does not have a habit of making knee jerk reactions about things he doesn’t know. He is a very leaned man. However, this forum keeps getting hit by people who attempt to ram down our throats a revised version of history. It’s hard not to be cynical at times. A while ago one thread was hit hard by people trying their damndest to prove that homosexuality was widely accepted down through the ages, when in reality there is a whole lot of objective evidence to the contrary.

I agree it’s disordered.

 

[John21652]

I agree it’s disordered.

If that is the case, then you must think it is normal. And normative.

 

[tomarin]

If that is the case, then you must think it is normal. And normative.

Eh? No, far from it. I think we’re miscommunicating here.

 

[John21652]

Eh? No, far from it. I think we’re miscommunicating here.

I think we are indeed!!

My mistake. Humble apology.

It probably doesn’t show up on your screen, but my last post was at 1.40 am. Must’ve been nearly asleep at the wheel.

You might enjoy this thread.