Natural law morality vs. utilitarian ethics

[awatkins69]

Now do you reconcile these facts with Catholic “natural law”:

Infanticide was quite common in human history. About 20% of infants were killed in the paleolithic era.

The Spanish justified the poor treatment of the Native Americans with natural law philosophy.

Utilitarianism and “natural law” have a different epistemology: utilitarians are nominalists while “natural law” proponents are essentialists. In the nominalist sense, there is no essential natures, only propensities.

I’m not sure what the first one proves - that we are apt to fail to realize the natural law? People nuked Hiroshima; unjust wars are waged all the time; a failure to realize the natural law says nothing against the natural law itself. With the second one, just as many people used the natural law to persuade the Spanish that the killing of natives was unjust, and they ended up getting the Spanish to make laws protecting the Indians’ natural rights. The natural law case for the natives was much better:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_vitoria
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Laws

 

[awatkins69]

Just an interesting note: I also just found out, in a book, that Sepulveda’s works were definitively banned from reading in Spain.

 

[John21652]

Now do you reconcile these facts with Catholic “natural law”:

Infanticide was quite common in human history. About 20% of infants were killed in the paleolithic era.

The Spanish justified the poor treatment of the Native Americans with natural law philosophy.

Why do these things need to be reconciled with 'Catholic “natural law” '? Were Catholics knocking off their babies and infants in the Paleolithic era?

As for the “poor treatment of Native Americans…”, well that has the same status as slavery did under Natural Law. The answer is “None”! But that doesn’t mean the Natural Law is at fault. All that is at fault is people who went against the Natural Law, for whatever reason.

Utilitarianism and “natural law” have a different epistemology: utilitarians are nominalists while “natural law” proponents are essentialists. In the nominalist sense, there is no essential natures, only propensities.

I find your 'definitions of both Utilitarianism and Natural Law somewhat limited. Natural Law is much more than the essence of things. It is greatly grounded in deontology and even therein it contains variations, from moral absolutism to a more consequentialist ethical approach and all with a good dose of empiricism. Utilitarians as nominalists could mean anything really. Nominalism can reject causality created by innert abstractions, or even reject non-concrete objects. That sort of kills off God, which suits the utilitarian ethicist perfectly. Then, of course, the utilitarian must by definition fall into hedonism, whereby we can discern moral hedonism and psychological hedonism and sensual materialism. It is little wonder that Utilitarianism has broken into so many sub sets but each still with the pleasure and pain calculus attached. It collapses in on itself with rediculous outcomes defended by its own illogicalities. Utilitarianism does not cater for the epistemological or spiritual needs of man but concentrates on the here and now, judging rightness and wrongness by the consequences of actions and all the while running smack bang into the parodox of pleasure.

 

[Rocinante]

@john

you said about utilitarianism…

It collapses in on itself with rediculous outcomes defended by its own illogicalities.

this just can’t be true since bad or ridiculous outcomes is exactly what consequences we ought to try to avoid under utilitarianism.

 

[John21652]

@john

you said about utilitarianism…

this just can’t be true since bad or ridiculous outcomes is exactly what consequences we ought to try to avoid under utilitarianism.

Don’t you think Peter Singer’s conclusion that sex with animals is ok isn’t a rediculous, or even bad outcome?

 

[Rocinante]

Don’t you think Peter Singer’s conclusion that sex with animals is ok isn’t a rediculous, or even bad outcome?

the thing is, if sex with animals is really bad for people and animals, then a consequentialist view of morality says that we should not do it.

 

[josephryungk]

the “problem” with natural law is who defines it.

for a church to define any law and impose it in a free society which clearly states that its constituents do not have to follow one defined religion is a contradiction in terms.

My “nature” is to be attracted to men, and to love people. I do not need nor want your priest telling me about my nature or how I should deal with it and I have a constitution saying I don’t have to.

does that make things more clear? you don’t get to decide on what’s “natural” for me, mostly because it does not concern you.

 

[John21652]

the “problem” with natural law is who defines it.

for a church to define any law and impose it in a free society which clearly states that its constituents do not have to follow one defined religion is a contradiction in terms.

My “nature” is to be attracted to men, and to love people. I do not need nor want your priest telling me about my nature or how I should deal with it and I have a constitution saying I don’t have to.

does that make things more clear? you don’t get to decide on what’s “natural” for me, mostly because it does not concern you.

Here we go. A moral relativist has come along to tell us he can do whatever he likes because he is supported by positivist law and his behaviour has no impact on anyone else. You are wrong on every count. There have been quite a few threads in very recent days where your arguments have been thoroughly done over and trashed. Why don’t you go and read those before coming here trying to spread your gay activism.
Better still, hang around and give us your views on the scenario written above.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

joseph

*the “problem” with natural law is who defines it. *

The problem with natural law is who defies it! Mostly pinheads, to coin a phrase.

*My “nature” is to be attracted to men, and to love people. I do not need nor want your priest telling me about my nature or how I should deal with it and I have a constitution saying I don’t have to. *

If you’re talking about the U.S. Constitution, it says no such thing. Read it again! When the Constitution was approved, sodomites were routine imprisoned for sodomy. Some were castrated by law, and Thomas Jefferson introduced such a bill.

Stop pretending you are a constitutional scholar when you don’t know the first thing about it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rocinante

*the thing is, if sex with animals is really bad for people and animals, then a consequentialist view of morality says that we should not do it. *

Same for a natural law view of morality. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!

 

[Rocinante]

rocinante

*the thing is, if sex with animals is really bad for people and animals, then a consequentialist view of morality says that we should not do it. *

Same for a natural law view of morality. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature!

i don’t know what you mean about fooling mother nature. can she be fooled?

anyway, do you think that natural law amounts to the same thing as a sort of consequentialism?

what does natural law ethics say such people should do when colombian drug lords demand $10,000 for the life of your daughter?

consider also the ticking time bomb torture scenario. even though we find torture reprehensible, if the danger of the bomb was extreme enough and the chances of getting information that would enable us to prevent the explosion were thought to be good enough, we would have to do the torture. wouldn’t we?

how about the question of abortion to save the life of the mother?

aren’t such issues always a matter of weighing of consequences. how else could we make such decisions between two competing evils? how would an understanding of the so-called “essential nature of humanity” help at all in any of these scenarios?

 

[John21652]

the thing is, if sex with animals is really bad for people and animals, then a consequentialist view of morality says that we should not do it.

Well, how do you judge whether or not sex with animals is “really bad for people and animals”? And how do you define “really bad”?

 

[John21652]

joseph

*the “problem” with natural law is who defines it. *

The problem with natural law is who defies it! Mostly pinheads, to coin a phrase.

I had a few other …heads in mind!

There is a well known saying which is, The Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

 

[Rocinante]

Well, how do you judge whether or not sex with animals is “really bad for people and animals”? And how do you define “really bad”?

we have to apply our developing understanding of human and animal well-being to answer this question.

“bad” means, an impediment to thriving–to becoming healthy and strong physically, intellectually, socially, and emotionally (and perhaps some other ways).

i would think sex with animals would be a potential impediment to developing healthy relationships with other humans. it is also possible that it is harmful to the animals, but perhaps not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

i would think sex with animals would be a potential impediment to developing healthy relationships with other humans.

In other words, it’s unnatural to prefer sex with animals if it impedes sexual relationships with humans? But if it didn’t impede sex relations with humans, it would be natural?

Sheesh!

Do you know any animals that want sex relations with humans? I don’t. I don’t think there are any, because they have more inhibitions against such a thing than some humans who are pinheads.

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

i would think sex with animals would be a potential impediment to developing healthy relationships with other humans.

In other words, it’s unnatural to prefer sex with animals if it impedes sexual relationships with humans? But if it didn’t impede sex relations with humans, it would be natural?

Sheesh!

Do you know any animals that want sex relations with humans? I don’t. I don’t think there are any, because they have more inhibitions against such a thing than some humans who are pinheads.

i wasn’t talking about what is natural or unnatural but about what is moral versus immoral.

to my knowledge only natural law ethicists conflate those terms, and that is the problem with natural law theory. for me and for most people, what is natural refers to the state of nature–“what is” rather than “what ought to be.” i think it is important to maintain that distinction between the way things are and the way things should be. don’t you?

you asked. “But if it didn’t impede sex relations with humans, it would be [moral]?” my answer is “yes.” if a particular act is not bad for people or other conscious creatures, then it is not at all immoral. i think it is entirely nonsensical to talk about something being immoral if it is not bad for any conscious creature in at least some way.

can you think of anything that is immoral, but good for everyone? can you think of anything that is moral but bad for everyone? these would be contradictions in terms.

rocinante

 

[Betterave]

i wasn’t talking about what is natural or unnatural but about what is moral versus immoral.

to my knowledge only natural law ethicists conflate those terms, and that is the problem with natural law theory. for me and for most people, what is natural refers to the state of nature–“what is” rather than “what ought to be.” i think it is important to maintain that distinction between the way things are and the way things should be. don’t you?

That’s perfectly obvious that we need to maintain this distinction, rocinante. What on earth gave you the impression that natural law theory tries to do away with such a distinction? (I’ve already asked once where you are getting your bizarre miconceptions of natural law theory from - please do answer this question. There’s no point in you repeating the same straw man arguments over and over again.)

you asked. “But if it didn’t impede sex relations with humans, it would be [moral]?” my answer is “yes.” if a particular act is not bad for people or other conscious creatures, then it is not at all immoral. i think it is entirely nonsensical to talk about something being immoral if it is not bad for any conscious creature in at least some way.

Yeah, obviously. What is your point?? Are you suggesting that natural law theory denies this?? Why? How?

 

[Rocinante]

That’s perfectly obvious that we need to maintain this distinction, rocinante. What on earth gave you the impression that natural law theory tries to do away with such a distinction? (I’ve already asked once where you are getting your bizarre miconceptions of natural law theory from - please do answer this question. There’s no point in you repeating the same straw man arguments over and over again.)

Yeah, obviously. What is your point?? Are you suggesting that natural law theory denies this?? Why? How?

straw man??? i’m responding to Charlemagne and his notion of natural law ethics and conflation of “natural” and “moral” and “unnatural” with “immoral.” you say these issues are obvious, but they obviously aren’t obvious to him.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante
*
if a particular act is not bad for people or other conscious creatures, then it is not at all immoral. i think it is entirely nonsensical to talk about something being immoral if it is not bad for any conscious creature in at least some way. *

You don’t see any bad effect of having sex with animals?

This from Wikipedia

Infections that are transmitted from animals to humans are called zoonoses. Some zoonoses may be transferred through casual contact, but others are much more readily transferred by activities that expose humans to the semen, vaginal fluids, urine, saliva, feces and blood of animals. Examples of zoonoses are Brucellosis, Q fever, leptospirosis, and toxocariasis. Therefore sexual activity with animals is, in some instances, a high risk activity. Allergic reactions to animal semen may occur, including anaphylaxis. Bites and other trauma from penetration or trampling may occur.

You may try to fool mother Nature, but she will not be fooled. Natural law morality is a way to bow to mother Nature, who has the last say with respect to perverse actions.

 

[Betterave]

straw man??? i’m responding to Charlemagne and his notion of natural law ethics and conflation of “natural” and “moral” and “unnatural” with “immoral.” you say these issues are obvious, but they obviously aren’t obvious to him.

I think you’ve come into this with serious misconceptions and you’re interpreting everything in accordance with those misconceptions. In any case, where does C make this illicit conflation? Please cite a text to which you object so that we can discuss it.