Natural Law, or gradual human consensus?

[SplendidSt]

I was having a conversation with someone and he doesn’t believe in natural law. His reasoning is that morality exists because “the gradual human consensus” decided that certain things were wrong and right (murder, rape, etc.). So he believes things aren’t intrinsically wrong and if they are “intrinsically” wrong, they are so because the gradual human consensus decided it was.

I’m confused because I immediately think “who are the people deciding this? Which group of humans? Humans have never had consensus, what if the consensus is wrong? Isn’t your reasoning very superstitious? etc.” I should ask him these questions, but can anyone help me to make a case for natural law by first defeating his notions logically and providing a positive support of the law written in our nature?

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Judaism and Christianity are far removed from natural human desires. “Gradual Human Consensus” produced Stalinism and Hitlerism.

 

[john_ennis]

How can cultures which evolved separately from each other, have been involved in consensus with each other?

Societies in ancient Asia or Africa or North America had no contact with each other, yet still had similar laws regarding things like murder and stealing.

 

[Yeoman]

I was having a conversation with someone and he doesn’t believe in natural law. His reasoning is that morality exists because “the gradual human consensus” decided that certain things were wrong and right (murder, rape, etc.). So he believes things aren’t intrinsically wrong and if they are “intrinsically” wrong, they are so because the gradual human consensus decided it was.

I’m confused because I immediately think “who are the people deciding this? Which group of humans? Humans have never had consensus, what if the consensus is wrong? Isn’t your reasoning very superstitious? etc.” I should ask him these questions, but can anyone help me to make a case for natural law by first defeating his notions logically and providing a positive support of the law written in our nature?

The natural law exists because nature exists. As we are part of nature, it applies to us.

When lawyers were actually taught the Natural Law, a good many years ago, you would see it reflected in court opinions. When courts referred to the Natural Law, they conceived of it in three different fashion. One was the physical laws of nature, such as “water flows downhill”. Another was the “natural law of nations”, which was basically the common law of nations that they all recognized in regards to each other. The third was the Natural Law, being those rights, duties and obligations that apply to all human beings because they are human beings. They are innate. An example of that can be found in this pre Civil War quote from a U.S. Supreme Court opinion:

The question, whether the slave trade is prohibited by the law of nations has been seriously propounded, and both the affirmative and negative of the proposition have been maintained with equal earnestness.

That it is contrary to the law of nature will scarcely be denied. That every man has a natural right to the fruits of his own labour, is generally admitted; and that no other person can rightfully deprive him of those fruits, and appropriate them against his will, seems to be the necessary result of this admission. But from the earliest times war has existed, and war confers rights in which all have acquiesced. Among the most enlightened nations of antiquity, one of these was, that the victor might enslave the vanquished. This, which was the usage of all, could not be pronounced repugnant to the law of nations, which is certainly to be tried by the test of neral usage. That which has received the assent of all, must be the law of all.

Slavery, then, has its origin in force; but as the world has agreed that it is a legitimate result of force, the state of things which is thus produced by general consent, cannot be pronounced unlawful.

Throughout Christendom, this harsh rule has been exploded, and war is no longer considered as giving a right to enslave captives. But this triumph of humanity has not been universal. The parties to the modern law of nations do not propagate their principles by force; and Africa has not yet adopted them. Throughout the whole extent of that immense continent, so far as we know its history, it is still the law of nations that prisoners are slaves. Can those who have themselves renounced this law, be permitted to participate in its effects by purchasing the beings who are its victims?

Whatever might be the answer of a moralist to this question, a jurist must search for its legal solution, in those principles of action which are sanctioned by the usages, the national acts, and the general assent, of that portion of the world of which he considers himself as a part, and to whose law the appeal is made.

The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66 (1825).

As you can see, in this opinion the majority recognized Natural Law, but at the same time found that the American statutory law contravened it and was actually opposed to it. An interesting opinion that’s basically the polar opposite of the Obegefll decision the Court just handed down.

Natural Law does in fact exist, and can be discerned irrespective of a person’s religious beliefs, although the ultimate author of it varies depending upon a person’s concept of metaphysics and religion. All human beings have certain things encoded in their DNA or somehow inscribed upon their hearts. All have a concept of property and that taking it from another is wrong. All have a belief that you can’t kill anyone you might get the urge to. All have the idea that taking anther’s spouse is wrong. All humans have a concept of kinship that varies only by some degree (even if it seems to hugely vary to us) and that there’s certain relationships that implies.

Indeed, in this day and age, to believe that this is only due to the gradual human consensus would display a stunning ignorance of science, as the better evidence would be that we’re born with certain concepts genetically in some fashion, not be gradual consensus.

As an aside to this, it’s interesting that it the Western World Natural Law is huge in certain fields, even though we don’t quite think of it that way. Conservationist and Environmentalist, for example, of all types basically found their beliefs on the Natural Law, ie., the laws of nature, and that its right or wrong for us to do certain things accordingly. We live in an era when “nature” is huge, except apparently in so far as how we view gender related topics, oddly.

 

[fhansen]

To support his position your friend would have to deny, then, that anything is intrinsically wrong regardless of how much harm it causes to neighbor.

 

[Yeoman]

To support his position your friend would have to deny, then, that anything is intrinsically wrong regardless of how much harm it causes to neighbor.

Indeed he would.

I’ve always been tempted in such circumstances, although I certainly wouldn’t try it, to ask the other party to get out his wallet and then open it. When he does, to then reach in it and take out the cash. He’s say, of course, “Hey, what are you doing!”. The answer could be that, seeing as he recognizes nothing as innately wrong, taking his cash isn’t wrong.

Of course he could say that the community recognizes it as wrong, but you could say that you’d deny doing it, as lying wouldn’t be, obviously, innately wrong.

The point being, in all cultures, anywhere, at any time, ever, if you attempted something like that, it’d violate anyone’s sense of right and wrong.

It would also be a recipe for insanity as its so contrary to our natures.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’d answer your friend this way.

Was slavery right because it acquired over centuries a gradual approval of societies?

If it was not intrinsically wrong, would it be O.K. with him if a gradual consensus restored it?

 

[Wyrd]

I believe the Universe is Panentheistic and that in the long run they are largely the same thing
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I’d answer your friend this way.

Was slavery right because it acquired over centuries a gradual approval of societies?

If it was not intrinsically wrong, would it be O.K. with him if a gradual consensus restored it?

That’s a weird history of slavery you’ve got there. I wonder if you have any evidence of widespread slavery bans in ancient civilizations that would form the basis for this “gradual approval” theory. I strongly suspect you don’t, and that slavery goes back as far as history records. I would also like to point out that for a very long time the Catholic Church taught that slavery was not actually intrinsically wrong.

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution form being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law.

I also invite you to reflect on how grubby and political that particular New Advent entry is. There are no soaring philosophical conclusions or religious ecstasies, only weasel words and excuses. That is not a page dedicated to a heartfelt religious conviction, that is a page dedicated to damage control.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s a weird history of slavery you’ve got there. I wonder if you have any evidence of widespread slavery bans in ancient civilizations that would form the basis for this “gradual approval” theory. I strongly suspect you don’t, and that slavery goes back as far as history records. I would also like to point out that for a very long time the Catholic Church taught that slavery was not actually intrinsically wrong.

newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

I also invite you to reflect on how grubby and political that particular New Advent entry is. There are no soaring philosophical conclusions or religious ecstasies, only weasel words and excuses. That is not a page dedicated to a heartfelt religious conviction, that is a page dedicated to damage control.

So I’ll ask you the same question I threw out to all. Please answer.

If slavery is not intrinsically wrong, would it be O.K. with you if gradual consensus restored it?

 

[Bill_Martin]

Well, humans have repeatedly come to a consensus about all kinds of horrible things and asserted that they were right. Stuff like slavery, cannibalism, mass extermination, etc were all agreed upon as right at one time or by one group of people, yet condemned in another time or by a different group. So who is really right when two groups come to a different consensus? How can anyone claim that the other is wrong? Why do we condemn anything if there is no objective standard to compare it to? If we compare it to our own standard, then we have no right to tell anyone that they are wrong, since they could just as easily tell us that we are.

More important though is the question of how our consensus has changed, if there is no objective right or wrong to form it. Assuming we’re basically making this up as we go, why do we condemn slavery now, but not before? Slavery was convenient, cheap, and got stuff done. What caused our view to change?

I think most people actually believe in the natural law when you look at their actions and beliefs about right and wrong. Moral relativism gets dusted off for use in a discussion or argument, but then is stashed away into disuse once that’s over.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think most people actually believe in the natural law when you look at their actions and beliefs about right and wrong. Moral relativism gets dusted off for use in a discussion or argument, but then is stashed away into disuse once that’s over.

:clapping:

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So I’ll ask you the same question I threw out to all. Please answer.

If slavery is not intrinsically wrong, would it be O.K. with you if gradual consensus restored it?

Depends on how convincing the reasons for bringing it back were. I can’t reasonably be expected to argue against all possible future arguments. I’m quite comfortable with my reasons for thinking that slavery should be illegal, but its certainly possible that there are good reasons for allowing it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’m quite comfortable with my reasons for thinking that slavery should be illegal, but its certainly possible that there are good reasons for allowing it.

That you could not even imagine a good reason is telling.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

That you could not even imagine a good reason is telling.

If I really wanted to argue against a reason for allowing slavery, I would have chosen the earlier Catholic ones. But as I said, I can’t argue against some hypothetical set of future arguments.

 

[Rhubarb]

Just as a side point: you don’t need to rely on natural law to get to intrinsic right and wrong. There are plenty of coherent and consistent (it seems) mete-ethical theories that’ll do it without an appeal to natural law or theology. (In case religion is the sticking point)

It sounds like your friend is convolution ‘wrong’ with ‘considered wrong.’ These are subtly different. To say that something is wrong is to be committed to the sentence “X is wrong” having a truth value. For instance, if you say ‘slavery is wrong’ you must then agree that ‘slavery is wrong’ is true. ‘Considered wrong’ doesn’t work that way. ‘Slavery is considered wrong’ doesn’t mean that ‘slavery is wrong’ must be true, just that the population thinks that it is.

He might think that right and wrong just come down to what people consider right and wrong. But that position has problems. (Even for atheist/agnostic ethicists, it’s not considered a strong position) When introducing the distinction, I usually ask this. “Do you think that taking happy cute puppies and putting them into a sack and beating them all to death at once with a sledgehammer is wrong?” (Clearly this is wrong. No matter what society thinks - it’s wrong) If he’s willing to admit that it depends on how we considers it - or answers ‘yes, but what if we were in a society that thought it was right? Then it wouldn’t be wrong’ you can suggest a more horrible thing. Rape, murder, etc. If he honestly and truly thinks that these heinous acts could ever possibly be right, then he’s biting the bullet and accepting that his position has a serious (to most people) flaw.

 

[fhansen]

Just as a side point: you don’t need to rely on natural law to get to intrinsic right and wrong. There are plenty of coherent and consistent (it seems) mete-ethical theories that’ll do it without an appeal to natural law or theology. (In case religion is the sticking point)

It sounds like your friend is convolution ‘wrong’ with ‘considered wrong.’ These are subtly different. To say that something is wrong is to be committed to the sentence “X is wrong” having a truth value. For instance, if you say ‘slavery is wrong’ you must then agree that ‘slavery is wrong’ is true. ‘Considered wrong’ doesn’t work that way. ‘Slavery is considered wrong’ doesn’t mean that ‘slavery is wrong’ must be true, just that the population thinks that it is.

He might think that right and wrong just come down to what people consider right and wrong. But that position has problems. (Even for atheist/agnostic ethicists, it’s not considered a strong position) When introducing the distinction, I usually ask this. “Do you think that taking happy cute puppies and putting them into a sack and beating them all to death at once with a sledgehammer is wrong?” (Clearly this is wrong. No matter what society thinks - it’s wrong) If he’s willing to admit that it depends on how we considers it - or answers ‘yes, but what if we were in a society that thought it was right? Then it wouldn’t be wrong’ you can suggest a more horrible thing. Rape, murder, etc. If he honestly and truly thinks that these heinous acts could ever possibly be right, then he’s biting the bullet and accepting that his position has a serious (to most people) flaw.

But even if he accepts that his position is flawed, can he back up the opposite position? Even as consistent universal patterns of opinion and behavior may exist regarding ethics, its equally obvious that morality is quite relative, flexible, seeing as it’s entirely possible, at least, to override or otherwise change one’s opinion and subsequent behavior.

 

[Rhubarb]

But even if he accepts that his position is flawed, can he back up the opposite position? Even as consistent universal patterns of opinion and behavior may exist regarding ethics, its equally obvious that morality is quite relative, flexible, seeing as it’s entirely possible, at least, to override or otherwise change one’s opinion and subsequent behavior.

When it comes to arguments in ethics, which this is, I’ve never seen a position that’s ironclad. Divine command theory, which is where most Christian ethics comes from, has problems too. Not that any problems can’t be argued about, but they need to be addressed. Anyway, I’ll say more about the OP’s thing.

If he is proposing that ‘wrong’ is the same thing as ‘considered wrong’, he’s actually suggesting one of at least two different positions. He’s either suggesting that:

1. There are no moral truths at all, just what we consider right and wrong. Or,
2. There really are moral truths, and those moral truths just are what we consider right and wrong.

The former is called moral nihilism, or error theory. The latter is called cultural relativism. Error theory, I think, has less problems. But it’s still not generally attractive because, let’s face it, it’s feels really, really right to say that rape is wrong. Period.

 

[fhansen]

When it comes to arguments in ethics, which this is, I’ve never seen a position that’s ironclad. Divine command theory, which is where most Christian ethics comes from, has problems too. Not that any problems can’t be argued about, but they need to be addressed. Anyway, I’ll say more about the OP’s thing.

If he is proposing that ‘wrong’ is the same thing as ‘considered wrong’, he’s actually suggesting one of at least two different positions. He’s either suggesting that:

1. There are no moral truths at all, just what we consider right and wrong. Or,
2. There really are moral truths, and those moral truths just are what we consider right and wrong.

The former is called moral nihilism, or error theory. The latter is called cultural relativism. Error theory, I think, has less problems. But it’s still not generally attractive because, let’s face it, it’s feels really, really right to say that rape is wrong. Period.

I understand that it feels really, really right to say some things are wrong. But I don’t know if this is any different in essence from saying that a natural law exists for humans.

 

[Rhubarb]

I understand that it feels really, really right to say some things are wrong. But I don’t know if this is any different in essence from saying that a natural law exists for humans.

Having a philosophical intuition doesn’t require a natural law, I think. For instance, I’m going to assume that most posters here are going to say that same sex marriage (just as an example, let’s not spin off into that) violates the natural law, and they have an intuition that it is wrong. But there are plenty of people who have the intuition that it isn’t wrong. What this shows is that the natural law (if it exists) doesn’t map to all intuitions, and that our intuitions don’t need a natural law to underwrite them.

If that’s correct, then stuff can feel wrong without an appeal to natural law. Many ethical theories try to explain how morality works without that appeal. I would say that the majority of moral philosophy doesn’t use natural law in the Christian sense. (Of course this doesn’t mean there is no natural law - just that it isn’t expressly needed to build an ethical theory)