Natural law morality vs. utilitarian ethics

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

i’m responding to Charlemagne and his notion of natural law ethics and conflation of “natural” and “moral” and “unnatural” with “immoral.”

Face it, this is more absurd logic of the Touchstone variety.

From the dawn of history you will have to argue that humans of every civilization have conflated homosexuality with unnatural and therefore immoral (Plato called it shameful) behavior. Funny, isn’t it, that you can’t reverse the historical record in your favor? Do you ever wonder why? Or do you just automatically assume that you are right and the judgment of all civilizations must be wrong wrong because they disagree with you?

 

[tomarin]

From the dawn of history you will have to argue that humans of every civilization have conflated homosexuality with unnatural and therefore immoral (Plato called it shameful) behavior. Funny, isn’t it, that you can’t reverse the historical record in your favor? Do you ever wonder why? Or do you just automatically assume that you are right and the judgment of all civilizations must be wrong wrong because they disagree with you?

I think the ancient Greeks’ attitudes towards homosexuality esp. that between men, was very different from ours. They viewed the love between men as superior to that between a man and woman. I believe a lot of that stemmed from their “natural” (in the sense that it seemed self-evidently right to them) misogyny.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I think the ancient Greeks’ attitudes towards homosexuality esp. that between men, was very different from ours. They viewed the love between men as superior to that between a man and woman. I believe a lot of that stemmed from their “natural” (in the sense that it seemed self-evidently right to them) misogyny.

I don’t know what sources you are reading, but you may change your mind after reading this.

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

Plato and Aristotle both had nothing good to say for homosexuality, and much not so good.

Plato, Laws [636c]

“And whether one makes the observation in earnest or in jest, one certainly should not fail to observe that when male unites with female for procreation the pleasure experienced is held to be due to nature, but contrary to nature when male mates with male or female with female, and that those first guilty of such enormities were impelled by their slavery to pleasure.”

Aristotle
Nichomacean Ethics Book 7, Section 5:
“Some things are not naturally pleasant, but can become so through injury, habit or congenital depravity. And for each unnatural pleasure there is an abnormal state of character. There is the brutish character, as in those tribes around the Black Sea who eat human flesh. Also, morbid states, like nail-biting or homosexuality … may have been acquired by habit, for instance if someone has been sexually misused as a child."

---

 

[John21652]

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

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.

Rocinante, you seem to think that natural Law ethicists conflate unnatural with moral. In a sense they do, but there are a few steps in between. Unlike the very simple Utilitarian pleasure/pain calculus, Natural Law requires a process of discovery and discernment. It is a process which requires the use of objective reasoning. Unlike Utilitarianism which is by its very nature, subjective. The use of human reason discovers and discerns that which is universal, natural and ordered. Thus, the essential nature of things, man included, is found. If the word "natural’ means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with “law,” “natural” must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man’s nature and to nothing else. Knowing this, cannot then we discern an objective “good” for the development, security, well being and happiness of man? That is the end of the proper nature of man, is it not? Moral conduct is therefore conduct in accord with right reason: If it is said that moral conduct is rational conduct, what is meant is that it is conduct in accordance with right reason, reason apprehending the objective good for man and dictating the means to its attainment. For the natural-law theorist, the general law of morality for man is a special case of the system of natural law governing all entities of the world, each with its own nature and its own ends. Animals are compelled to proceed in accordance with the ends dictated by their natures, whereas man, “the rational animal,” possesses reason to discover such ends and the free will to choose. And that is how we arrive at “ought”. So, sex with animals - Good,Bad, Rational?

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante, you seem to think that natural Law ethicists conflate unnatural with moral. In a sense they do, but there are a few steps in between. Unlike the very simple Utilitarian pleasure/pain calculus, Natural Law requires a process of discovery and discernment. It is a process which requires the use of objective reasoning. Unlike Utilitarianism which is by its very nature, subjective. The use of human reason discovers and discerns that which is universal, natural and ordered. Thus, the essential nature of things, man included, is found. If the word "natural’ means anything at all, it refers to the nature of a man, and when used with “law,” “natural” must refer to an ordering that is manifested in the inclinations of a man’s nature and to nothing else. Knowing this, cannot then we discern an objective “good” for the development, security, well being and happiness of man? That is the end of the proper nature of man, is it not? Moral conduct is therefore conduct in accord with right reason: If it is said that moral conduct is rational conduct, what is meant is that it is conduct in accordance with right reason, reason apprehending the objective good for man and dictating the means to its attainment. For the natural-law theorist, the general law of morality for man is a special case of the system of natural law governing all entities of the world, each with its own nature and its own ends. Animals are compelled to proceed in accordance with the ends dictated by their natures, whereas man, “the rational animal,” possesses reason to discover such ends and the free will to choose. And that is how we arrive at “ought”. So, sex with animals - Good,Bad, Rational?

i deny that there is such a thing as “human nature” as anything but an intellectual abstraction rather than something we need to conform to. we aren’t bound by biological nature in the way that other animals are. the “ends” you mention in this view are not an external creator’s intentions for us but what we hope to become. we have the ability not only to become conscious of our past ends but to create new and better ends, in other words, to recreate ourselves, to constantly redefine and (I hope) to improve the notion of humanity.

 

[tomarin]

I don’t know what sources you are reading, but you may change your mind after reading this.

youtube.com/watch?v=aHk9JoXoBMY&p=2C9C369EE404666F&playnext=1&index=2

I can’t really look at youtube here. Is it a video of a lecture?

I think any standard history textbook about the world of antiquity will confirm what I’m saying.

Plato and Aristotle both had nothing good to say for homosexuality, and much not so good.

If so then they were at odds with the dominant culture of their time.

 

[Betterave]

i deny that there is such a thing as “human nature” as anything but an intellectual abstraction rather than something we need to conform to.

so you deny, for example, that human beings, as such, need relatively clean water to drink??

we aren’t bound by biological nature in the way that other animals are.

Obviously not in the same way; who said we were?

the “ends” you mention in this view are not an external creator’s intentions for us but what we hope to become.

So whatever we humans hope to become is ipso facto our moral end??

we have the ability not only to become conscious of our past ends but to create new and better ends, in other words, to recreate ourselves, to constantly redefine and (I hope) to improve the notion of humanity.

better? better how? better with respect to what? is this possible? what makes it possible? isn’t this what Marx thought he was doing? or Nietzsche? or Hitler?

It would be nice if you would answer questions instead of just repeating the same thing over and over.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocianate
**
i deny that there is such a thing as “human nature” as anything but an intellectual abstraction rather than something we need to conform to.** we aren’t bound by biological nature in the way that other animals are. the “ends” you mention in this view are not an external creator’s intentions for us but what we hope to become. we have the ability not only to become conscious of our past ends but to create new and better ends, in other words, to recreate ourselves, to constantly redefine and (I hope) to improve the notion of humanity.

If there is no human nature, then how do we judge the rightness or wrongness of any human action? All actions are judged by whether they conform to the good of our human nature. For example, we are endowed with reason. It is therefore unnatural to suppress our rational impulses and the necessary education that feeds those rational impulses. That distinguishes our nature from the nature of other animals. We do not educate other animals because they do not have a “nature” that requires them to be educated beyond their immediate needs to survive.

Why don’t you see that our nature is different from the nature of other creatures? It is also in our nature to wonder about God and our relationship with Him. Other creatures are not given that nature. To suppress that wonder (through atheism) is likewise to suppress, pervert, and defeat our human nature.

There are simply too many aspects of our human nature different from the nature of other creatures to say that we have no specifically “human nature” that “we need to conform to.” It is this blurring of distinctions that makes it possible for people to lose their common sense and ask why we should not have sex with animals or between members of the same sex or with our parents or our children. All civilizations for thousands of years have recognized this “human nature” that you deny. Why are you right and all civilizations for thousands of years wrong?

 

[Betterave]

I can’t really look at youtube here. Is it a video of a lecture?

I think any standard history textbook about the world of antiquity will confirm what I’m saying.

If so then they were at odds with the dominant culture of their time.

So tomarin, what do you take to be the upshot?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tomarin

I think any standard history textbook about the world of antiquity will confirm what I’m saying.

No, it won’t. Homosexuality was always regarded as unnatural, even when it was commonly practiced. You are conflating the common practice of it with the common acceptance of it. The latter did not follow from the former, as Aristotle and Plato affirm. Also, if you read the playwights of ancient Athens, you would see that homosexuality was mocked on the stage. This proves that homosexuality was not commonly accepted, as no playwright would have risked offending his audience by holding up to ridicule a notion they held to be respectable.

You appear to be yet another Catholic victim of political correctness.

 

[tomarin]

tomarin

I think any standard history textbook about the world of antiquity will confirm what I’m saying.

No, it won’t. Homosexuality was always regarded as unnatural, even when it was commonly practiced. You are conflating the common practice of it with the common acceptance of it. The latter did not follow from the former, as Aristotle and Plato affirm. Also, if you read the playwights of ancient Athens, you would see that homosexuality was mocked on the stage. This proves that homosexuality was not commonly accepted, as no playwright would have risked offending his audience by holding up to ridicule a notion they held to be respectable.

I’m not saying that they wouldn’t regard a marriage between two men as unnatural or abnormal, but they definitely believed that while men needed to be married to women to propagate children, love between two men was of an altogether higher sort than what a man felt for his wife, who was, after all, merely a woman. What was normal back then or at least socially acceptable was taking a wife and also having a male lover for the higher sort of love. Or at least that’s what I learned from my classics classes in college.

You appear to be yet another Catholic victim of political correctness.

Priceless. If you knew me even the slightest bit you’d find that accusation very funny.

 

[tomarin]

So tomarin, what do you take to be the upshot?

For the natural law debate? I think it exists. But I don’t think the issue of whether the ancient Greeks were accepting of homosexuality either proves or disproves it.

 

[John21652]

I can’t really look at youtube here. Is it a video of a lecture?

I think any standard history textbook about the world of antiquity will confirm what I’m saying.

If so then they were at odds with the dominant culture of their time.

tomarin, it seems you are the victim of urban and cultural myths. Do you realize that the word homosexual wasn’t even invented until the 1800s. Consequently, certain ‘scholars’ have taken the ancient greek relationship of Pederasty and given it modern day sexual connotations under the newly formed word, homosexuality. What Charlegmane is telling you is correct. Homosexuality was frowned on in Ancient greece. He has mentioned Aristotle and Plato and mentioned the playwrites. One of the most famous, Aristophanes, was a comedy writer whose plays ridiculed same sex ‘love’. He called them euryprôktoi, which meant “wide arses”! In general Greek culture a man who let another man penetrate him was derided and shamed. True Pederast was all about the training of young men, in athletics, war, etc. It was all about initiation. There is a ancient Greek word, parastatheis, "he who stands beside. There are Greek vases which depict the older man standing side by side with the younger man on the battlefield. As for the Greek vases which depict homosexuality, there are precious few and many of them are actually Italian Greek, or Etruscan in origin.

 

[tomarin]

tomarin, it seems you are the victim of urban and cultural myths.

I’m a little skeptical of your claim that homosexuality was stigmatised in ancient Greece. I thought it was widespread and as I said, considered a higher form of love, in Athens at least. I can imagine that it was still controversial or only practiced by a certain elite or whatever. But I’m skeptical that it was as marginal as you make it out to be, not because I have any ulterior motives here but because it conflicts with what I’ve read in numerous books on the culture of ancient Greece.

Are you saying that the ancient Thebans who fielded entirely gay armies are an urban myth? I thought it was a matter of neutral fact.

Added: please note that I’m not saying that the Greeks had views identical to modern ones about this issue; far from it. I don’t think they believed that people were born with a “sexual orientation” or that they could even conceive of the idea of something like “gay rights” or whatever. I’m just claiming that from a philosophical standpoint they accepted the idea that because women were so far beneath men that sometimes a man liked to have another man as his love interest. This same man could be and often was married to a woman with whom he fathered children.

 

[tomarin]

So tomarin, what do you take to be the upshot?

I also think that the person who is arguing against natural law doesn’t really understand what it is and thinks it has something to do with the “laws” of the natural world which it doesn’t.

 

[Rocinante]

If there is no human nature, then how do we judge the rightness or wrongness of any human action? All actions are judged by whether they conform to the good of our human nature…

well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? you still don’t understand that only people who apply a natural law version of ethics judge rightness or wrongness in terms of human nature???

we are talking about one conception of morality (consequentialism) compared with another (natural law ethics). do you understand that proponents of each system of ethics will refuse to accept the premise of the other regarding what morality is?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tomarin

Or at least that’s what I learned from my classics classes in college.

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

The view that homosexuality was acceptable in ancient Greece was first promoted in the late Victorian era by the poet Walter Pater and others. Oscar Wilde went to prison for it. But since his time there has been a steady stream of so-called scholars, many of them practicing homosexuals, who have been promoting the myth that homosexuality was honorable in ancient Greece. This myth has been fairly well exploded, but it persists anyway … and you ought by now to know the reason why: homosexuals have to invent a history that validates their sexuality … and where better to start than the Golden Age of ancient Greece?

 

[John21652]

i deny that there is such a thing as “human nature” as anything but an intellectual abstraction rather than something we need to conform to. we aren’t bound by biological nature in the way that other animals are. the “ends” you mention in this view are not an external creator’s intentions for us but what we hope to become. we have the ability not only to become conscious of our past ends but to create new and better ends, in other words, to recreate ourselves, to constantly redefine and (I hope) to improve the notion of humanity.

I am not sure what you mean by “intellectual abstraction”, but last time I looked an abstraction required something to be extracted from. It is the case that human nature has been the subject of much human intellectual enquiry for a very long time. The (very human) endeavours of Philosophy, Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology etc have been studying human nature and attempting to ascertain exactly what constitutes human nature. The different disciplines often arrive at different conclusions about what constitutes human nature, but, to be sure, none of those fields of intellectual endeavour have ever concluded that there is no such thing as ‘human nature’!

If you are suggesting that human nature is merely an intellectual construct, then that denies the empicisim associated with these intellectual endevours, albeit in varying degrees. I’d suggest Immanuel Kant was about the only one who attempted to construct a purely intellectual (Pure Reason) theory of human nature and he was soon debunked. Descarte woke up to the fact that the human sciences required a mix of rational and empiricist investigation. After all, that’s how he discovered that he exists!

So, for you to say you deny that there is such a thing as human nature, except as an intellectual abstraction, really means you deny human nature has rational enquiry as part of its make up, whereas in fact, rational enquiry uses intellectual abstraction as a tool. If nothing else defines human nature, this certainly does.

The worrying aspect of hearing anyone state that they don’t beleive in, or actually deny the existence of, human nature, is that it reeks of a deconstructivist approach to human social relations. It reeks of an attempt to undermine the very foundations of western thought, tradition and history. It reeks of an attempt to redifine human society as something totally unrelated to what human society has proved itslef to be over millenia and that, with certainty, is a result of human nature.

Which is why sex with animals could ever manage to be on a discussion board invented and run according to natural human rationality.

 

[Rocinante]

The worrying aspect of hearing anyone state that they don’t beleive in, or actually deny the existence of, human nature, is that it reeks of a deconstructivist approach to human social relations. It reeks of an attempt to undermine the very foundations of western thought, tradition and history. It reeks of an attempt to redifine human society as something totally unrelated to what human society has proved itslef to be over millenia and that, with certainty, is a result of human nature.

denying the utility of the concept of human nature is not a denial of what humanity has been in the past but a denial of being bound by our past. it is a refusal to put undue limits on what humanity may become in the future. in this view humanity is less a static essence and more an ongoing project that has shown a lot of promise. our past is not viewed as something we need to conform to but something we will need to understand and transcend in order to become better than we now are.

 

[Betterave]

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.

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
If there is no human nature, then how do we judge the rightness or wrongness of any human action? All actions are judged by whether they conform to the good of our human nature…

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.