Natural Law "the law that is written on the heart of Man"

[CradleCath]

Lately, I‘ve seen numerous messages that have denied that Natural Law can, by itself, show that gay “marriage” would be immoral & that the use of our sexual organs for gay sex, is against the Laws of our Creator. I think that many don’t understand Natural Law, which I’ve also seen referred to as Moral Law, Divine Law & the “Truth that is written on the heart of man.”

First, I think it’s important to know what Natural Law ISN’T. The Catholic Church did not “invent” Natural Law. It was recognized way before Christ was born. Natural law is law whose content derives naturally from human nature or physical nature, and therefore has universal validity. Whether one is Catholic or Atheist or Morman the Natural Law is universally binding.

The Stoics asserted that the universe existed according to a rational and purposeful order (a divine or eternal law), before the birth of Christ. They held that the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law. Stoic logic is, in all essentials, the logic of Aristotle, who has been called the “Father” of Natural Law…….though, I think that Aquinas so explained it in a way that made Natural Law easier to comprehend.

Natural Law is that which can be known by reason, alone.
We do not have to be taught that… for a Mother to take the life of her unborn child… is wrong. We do not have to be taught that stealing another’s property is not living in accordance with the Laws that govern a person or that person’s society. Wholesale thievery would cause disorder in our Creator’s World & our God is a God of order & reason. We can know, without Scripture….without being taught……that to murder another creature of our same nature, can be right ONLY when that person threatens our own self, or another innocent/innocents.

And I’ll bet that the first man & the first woman… whether one believes in Intelligent Design or the Big Bang theory…the first rational persons knew exactly what was the purpose of our sexual organs before their first year as “newbies” had ended. :yup:

I have seen “observations” that infer that the laws of a nation do not consider Natural Law. This is wrong, see below. I’ve seen questions asked such as, “if the Catholic Church is going to lobby against gay “marriage”, why isn’t it lobbying to make missing Mass illegal, to require that all people must go to confession once a year“. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what is Church Law & what is Natural Law. I have no idea why so many Protestant Churches have caved & accepted Artificial Contraception, Gay “marriage” & multiple marriages. I do know that the Catholic Church will remain true to what can be known by reason alone.

From Thomas Jefferson:
The Nature and Source of Our Rights
“The principles on which we engaged, of which the charter of our independence is the record, were sanctioned by the laws of our being, and we but obeyed them in pursuing undeviatingly the course they called for. It issued finally in that inestimable state of freedom which alone can ensure to man the enjoyment of his equal rights.” --Thomas Jefferson to Georgetown Republicans, 1809. ME 16:349

**“Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice.” **–Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:441

**“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, **and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.” --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

 

[Dale_M]

I think that many don’t understand Natural Law, which I’ve also seen referred to as Moral Law, Divine Law & the “Truth that is written on the heart of man.”

First, I think it’s important to know what Natural Law ISN’T. The Catholic Church did not “invent” Natural Law. It was recognized way before Christ was born. Natural law is law whose content derives naturally from human nature or physical nature, and therefore has universal validity. Whether one is Catholic or Atheist or Morman the Natural Law is universally binding.

Yep. The problem with Natural Law theory is that people agree in general about its rough outline, but as with Just War theory, when it gets down to spelling out specifics there is no end to argument. Of course, the Church can put an end to the interminable disagreements by invoking its teaching authority. However, this appeal to authority doesn’t work with non-Catholics.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

What about psychopaths?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

They are people yet do not esteem others in the way you’ve described as “Natural Law.”

 

[CradleCath]

Yep. The problem with Natural Law theory is that people agree in general about its rough outline, but as with Just War theory, when it gets down to spelling out specifics there is no end to argument.

However, there shouldn’t be an argument. As I explained, some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and** are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.** Natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change.

The concept of natural law originated with the Greeks, centuries before the Birth of Christ & the Catholic Church.

Of course, in order to discover the Truths of Natural Law, one must be seeking Truth.

March to Keep Fear Alive | Stephen Colbert Rally
Click here:
colbertrally.com/

 

[MissesE]

What about psychopaths?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

They are people yet do not esteem others in the way you’ve described as “Natural Law.”

If there is something to know about morality, then some people will know more than others. If a moral sense or ability to discern what is right and wrong is anything like our other abilities then some people will be especially talented and others will be very bad at it. The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments. The fact that psychopaths can’t understand morality is no more a problem for the existence of moral truth than the fact that some people (like me) can’t make sense of quantum mechanics is a problem for the truth of physics.

 

[inocente]

I have no idea why so many Protestant Churches have caved & accepted Artificial Contraception, Gay “marriage” & multiple marriages.

Some alternate views about what is written on our hearts.

In Luke 10:25-37 when asked the important question Who is my neighbor? Jesus doesn’t provide a set of rules or even a methodology. Instead He teaches us by telling a story where the good guy works it out for himself.

Paul is likewise flexible - as in all of 1 Cor 13. (Romans 2:14-15 is then about instinctive morality supplemented by individual conscience, while 2:16 is about God judging how well we did.)

Scripture is likewise not static. See for example the last paragraph of the section True God vs. false gods in Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis 1-3 - “In the Bible itself the images are free and they correct themselves ongoingly. In this way they show, by means of a gradual and interactive process, that they are only images, which reveal something deeper and greater.”

 

[MissesE]

What about psychopaths?

On the question of whether psychopaths are problematic to the notion that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions that can be known through rational inquiry, Sam Harris writes:

"We already know that psychopaths have brain damage that prevents them from having certain deeply satisfying experiences (like empathy) which seem good for people both personally and collectively (in that they tend to increase well-being on both counts). Psychopaths, therefore, don’t know what they are missing (but we do). The position of a psychopath also cannot be generalized; it is not, therefore, an alternative view of how human beings should live (this is one point Kant got right: even a psychopath couldn’t want to live in a world filled with psychopaths). We should also realize that the psychopath we are envisioning is a straw man: Watch interviews with real psychopaths, and you will find that they do not tend to claim to be in possession of an alternative morality or to be living deeply fulfilling lives.

These people are generally ruled by compulsions that they don’t understand and cannot resist. It’s absolutely clear that, whatever they might believe about what they are doing, psychopaths are seeking some form of well-being (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it. We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing. Compare Bundy’s deficits to those of a delusional physicist who finds meaningful patterns and mathematical significance in the wrong places (John Nash might have been a good example, while suffering the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia). His “Eureka!” detectors are poorly coupled to reality; he sees meaningful patterns where most people would not–and these patterns will be a very poor guide to the proper goals of physics (i.e. understanding the physical world). Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his overriding obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e. living a fulfilling life with others)?"

huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/moral-confusion-in-the-na_b_517710.html

 

[CradleCath]

If there is something to know about morality, then some people will know more than others. If a moral sense or ability to discern what is right and wrong is anything like our other abilities then some people will be especially talented and others will be very bad at it. The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments. The fact that psychopaths can’t understand morality is no more a problem for the existence of moral truth than the fact that some people (like me) can’t make sense of quantum mechanics is a problem for the truth of physics.

Thank You MissesE. I pretty much ignored the “psychopath post”. I figured it was just sarcasm. At least, I hope it was…as the possibility that Natural Law should be centered around mental illness means that society is in worse shape that I realized.

There have been fierce debates in this forum lately about gay marriage, about the “Constitutional RIGHT” for two men or two women to be married. Of course, this is false, there is no Constitutional “right” to practice perverse sexual practices, since the human rights given to us by our Creator were a guidline by which our Constitution was formed. It was based upon the Natural, Moral Law. Not on the Laws of any specific religion, but upon those "Laws that are written on the heart of man.

The following is a great article about this subject of Natural Law:

forerunner.com/forerunner/weiner/X0023_9110_Natural_Law.html

"To understand the Constitution and this government of laws,** it is important that we realize that the founders saw that because the rights they were seeking to protect were God- given, Creator- endowed rights,** they would not be able to be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with the Creator’s law. They called this higher law, “natural law” or the "laws of nature."

**James Madison, **known as the major framer of the American Constitution, and one of its brilliant defenders, identified the leading principle for the success of the first form of a Republican government: “We have stacked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

James Madison clearly identified the ultimate source of Constitutional law as the Ten Commandments. This immutable code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man’s rights and designed to promote, preserve and protect him and his fellows was viewed by the founders as the source of the individual rights of men. They believed that such natural law was revealed to man through his reason and was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor.

Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained America’s lawyers during our First Century, explains: "For as God, when He created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the direction of that motion; so, when He created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purpose of those laws."4

I believe that anyone who seeks answers can understand the Natural Law, by which God’s universe **must **be run to avoid utter chaos & destruction.

A good example is the gift of taste, which again is part of our nature. It was given to us to make sustaining ourselves with healthy foods something enjoyable. Can it also be abused? You bet it can, just look at the rate of obesity in our Nation today.

He gave us the sense of sight, which is inborn for both our safety & our pleasure. It enables us to avoid dangerous places &, most of all to see the beautiful world He has given us. Can the sense of sight be used to view porn? Yep, it can. But how many here believe that our Creators made us sighted people in order to view porn??

He gave us our sexual organs that we might procreate & that we might actually become one with the person with which we choose to bond & raise the children born to us. Can we use our sexual organs in perverse ways. Sure we can. Can these same organs be used to practice gay sex? Yes. Can human beings resort to Masturbation for immediate gratification? Happens all of the time. But how many here truly believe that gay sex & Masturbaton is the purpose God intends for our sexual organs?

 

[MissesE]

Some alternate views about what is written on our hearts…

One alternative view to explain moral intuitions is that they are rooted in (though far from exhaustibly accounted for by) evolution rather than a supernatural extra-added ingredient called a conscience.

Mice have been shown to demonstrate a greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones. Monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks. Chimpanzees have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards. These are precisely the sorts of repeatable scientific facts about the world one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution. This must be what is meant by “written on our hearts” if that expression has any basis in what we now know about how the world works.

 

[MissesE]

Thank You MissesE. I pretty much ignored the “psychopath post”. I figured it was just sarcasm. At least, I hope it was…as the possibility that Natural Law should be centered around mental illness means that society is in worse shape that I realized.

There have been fierce debates in this forum lately about gay marriage, about the “Constitutional RIGHT” for two men or two women to be married. Of course, this is false, there is no Constitutional “right” to practice perverse sexual practices, since the human rights given to us by our Creator were a guidline by which our Constitution was formed. It was based upon the Natural, Moral Law. Not on the Laws of any specific religion, but upon those "Laws that are written on the heart of man.

The following is a great article about this subject of Natural Law:

forerunner.com/forerunner/weiner/X0023_9110_Natural_Law.html

"To understand the Constitution and this government of laws,** it is important that we realize that the founders saw that because the rights they were seeking to protect were God- given, Creator- endowed rights,** they would not be able to be sustained in society unless they were protected under a code of law which was itself in harmony with the Creator’s law. They called this higher law, “natural law” or the "laws of nature."

**James Madison, **known as the major framer of the American Constitution, and one of its brilliant defenders, identified the leading principle for the success of the first form of a Republican government: “We have stacked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self- government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

James Madison clearly identified the ultimate source of Constitutional law as the Ten Commandments. This immutable code of law, sanctioned by the Creator of man’s rights and designed to promote, preserve and protect him and his fellows was viewed by the founders as the source of the individual rights of men. They believed that such natural law was revealed to man through his reason and was capable of being understood by both the ploughman and the professor.

Sir William Blackstone, whose writings trained America’s lawyers during our First Century, explains: "For as God, when He created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the direction of that motion; so, when He created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, **he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that free will is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason **to discover the purpose of those laws."4

I believe that anyone who seeks answers can understand the Natural Law, by which God’s universe **must **be run to avoid utter chaos & destruction.

A good example is the gift of taste, which again is part of our nature. It was given to us to make sustaining ourselves with healthy foods something enjoyable. Can it also be abused? You bet it can, just look at the rate of obesity in our Nation today.

He gave us the sense of sight, which is inborn for both our safety & our pleasure. It enables us to avoid dangerous places &, most of all to see the beautiful world He has given us. Can the sense of sight be used to view porn? Yep, it can. But how many here believe that our Creators made us sighted people in order to view porn??

He gave us our sexual organs that we might procreate & that we might actually become one with the person with which we choose to bond & raise the children born to us. Can we use our sexual organs in perverse ways. Sure we can. Can these same organs be used to practice gay sex? Yes. Can human beings resort to Masturbation for immediate gratification? Happens all of the time. But how many here truly believe that gay sex & Masturbaton is the purpose God intends for our sexual organs?

I thought perhaps we were in agreement, but the above is very different from what I mean by a natural moral law that can be learned about through rational inquiry. I don’t think of morality as stating what we think God’s purpose is and trying to conform to that. Doing so just begs the question since someone has to first decide what they think God’s purpose is for everything in question. In the examples you gave, you are basically projecting your way of thinking (or your religion’s way) onto the world and then demanding that others conform to that way because it is simply the way of the world. This method of moral discernment is no way “natural” but rather is entirely dependent on your interpretation what what you think God has in mind as the single prupose for each thing.

What makes morality amenable to reason is nothing like what you described. Morality is open to rational inquiry because what is moral is what contributes to human flourishing and the possibilities for human flourishing are constrained by facts about nature and ourselves. Better understanding these facts through scientific research will help us learn what is moral, i.e., how to thrive.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If there is something to know about morality, then some people will know more than others. If a moral sense or ability to discern what is right and wrong is anything like our other abilities then some people will be especially talented and others will be very bad at it. The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments. The fact that psychopaths can’t understand morality is no more a problem for the existence of moral truth than the fact that some people (like me) can’t make sense of quantum mechanics is a problem for the truth of physics.

But the OP said:
"Wholesale thievery would cause disorder in our Creator’s World & our God is a God of order & reason. We can know, without Scripture….without being taught……that to murder another creature of our same nature, can be right ONLY when that person threatens our own self, or another innocent/innocents. "

I contend that psychopaths do have to be taught this (but even after being taught do not believe it.) If there were a community consisting solely of psychopaths they would not only fail to arrive at your conception of “natural law” but also have no reason to posit its existence.

Sure, you can contend that natural law still exists, but since it clearly varies between individuals how can we be certain that your version of it is the one true natural law? “The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments.” but his judgments are only incorrect by your standards. I contend therefore that “natural law” is actually a cultural phenomenon and does not “derive naturally from human nature or physical nature.”

 

[MissesE]

But the OP said:
"Wholesale thievery would cause disorder in our Creator’s World & our God is a God of order & reason. We can know, without Scripture….without being taught……that to murder another creature of our same nature, can be right ONLY when that person threatens our own self, or another innocent/innocents. "

I contend that psychopaths do have to be taught this (but even after being taught do not believe it.) If there were a community consisting solely of psychopaths they would not only fail to arrive at your conception of “natural law” but also have no reason to posit its existence.

Sure, you can contend that natural law still exists, but since it clearly varies between individuals how can we be certain that your version of it is the one true natural law? “The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments.” but his judgments are only incorrect by your standards. I contend therefore that “natural law” is actually a cultural phenomenon and does not “derive naturally from human nature or physical nature.”

I think I addressed all this in post #7, but let me know if you still have objections.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

On the question of whether psychopaths are problematic to the notion that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions that can be known through rational inquiry, Sam Harris writes:

"We already know that psychopaths have brain damage that prevents them from having certain deeply satisfying experiences (like empathy) which seem good for people both personally and collectively (in that they tend to increase well-being on both counts). Psychopaths, therefore, don’t know what they are missing (but we do). The position of a psychopath also cannot be generalized; it is not, therefore, an alternative view of how human beings should live (this is one point Kant got right: even a psychopath couldn’t want to live in a world filled with psychopaths). We should also realize that the psychopath we are envisioning is a straw man: Watch interviews with real psychopaths, and you will find that they do not tend to claim to be in possession of an alternative morality or to be living deeply fulfilling lives.

These people are generally ruled by compulsions that they don’t understand and cannot resist. It’s absolutely clear that, whatever they might believe about what they are doing, psychopaths are seeking some form of well-being (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it. We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing. Compare Bundy’s deficits to those of a delusional physicist who finds meaningful patterns and mathematical significance in the wrong places (John Nash might have been a good example, while suffering the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia). His “Eureka!” detectors are poorly coupled to reality; he sees meaningful patterns where most people would not–and these patterns will be a very poor guide to the proper goals of physics (i.e. understanding the physical world). Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his overriding obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e. living a fulfilling life with others)?"

huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/moral-confusion-in-the-na_b_517710.html

I was not saying there are no right and wrong answers, but that claiming natural law is somehow inherent in humanity is wrong. You would have to say that psychopaths are not people, or you could say that the actually do understand natural law. I say that the first is foolish, of course psychopaths are still people. Your quote weakly takes the approach that psychopaths do understand natural law.

“psychopaths are seeking some form of well-being (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it.”

This suggests that psychopaths value well being and therefore natural law. The problem is that they only value their own well being, and attempts to teach them “natural law” actually makes them worse psychopaths.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

All the law of God hangs and depends on the greatest commandments, if we could live by these commandments, we would not need any other laws.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by these commandments.

Jesus loves God the Father with all his heart, soul, mind and strength.
Jesus loves each and every one of us as he loves himself.

Blessings

Eric

 

[Veridical16]

What about psychopaths?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

They are people yet do not esteem others in the way you’ve described as “Natural Law.”

The fact that psychopaths can’t understand morality is no more a problem for the existence of moral truth than the fact that some people (like me) can’t make sense of quantum mechanics is a problem for the truth of physics.

Yes, Psychopaths could be included in those like the mentally ill. In regard to the Mentally Ill, they have a free will, but it is weakened or disabled, and they are subject to their ailments, to their fallen nature of the body, and their limited understanding of the use of free will and understanding of God’s commandments (whether from physical, chemical, or behavioral health deficiencies.)

When discussing Psychopaths, we also have to remember the limitations of Psychology. As an outerbranch of modern science it’s only been around for about a hundred and fifty years, then we also have to consider that the human mind, cannot be so easily quantified and as we speak , research is ongoing. We know some things about sociopaths and psychopaths, but one can’t really ascertain and assume they’re a fixed case, in regard to theological queries, especially in the case of how they exercise their free will, and how they would respond to the grace of God.

 

[grannymh]

The basis for morality is the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[CradleCath]

If there is something to know about morality, then some people will know more than others. If a moral sense or ability to discern what is right and wrong is anything like our other abilities then some people will be especially talented and others will be very bad at it.

I don’t think that I.Q. has much to do with the ability to discern right from wrong. Those who are actually seeking, will find the Truth.

The psychopath is obviously in the latter group and is entirely incompetant to make correct moral judgments. The fact that psychopaths can’t understand morality is no more a problem for the existence of moral truth than the fact that some people (like me) can’t make sense of quantum mechanics is a problem for the truth of physics.

 

[MissesE]

I was not saying there are no right and wrong answers, but that claiming natural law is somehow inherent in humanity is wrong. You would have to say that psychopaths are not people, or you could say that the actually do understand natural law. I say that the first is foolish, of course psychopaths are still people.

I agree. It is a fiction that we humans come pre-programmed already knowing what is right and wrong. Morality is something we need to learn about and our curent best understanding of what is right and wrong is far from complete. Rational inquiry into morals must continue (or perhaps commence considering that so many people don’t believe that morality is something amenable to rational inquiry.)

Your quote weakly takes the approach that psychopaths do understand natural law.

“psychopaths are seeking some form of well-being (excitement, ecstasy, feelings of power, etc.), but because of their neurological deficits, they are doing a very bad job of it.”

This suggests that psychopaths value well being and therefore natural law. The problem is that they only value their own well being, and attempts to teach them “natural law” actually makes them worse psychopaths.

The point is that everyone values wellbeing though we don’t completely understand what wellbeing is and how to increase wellbeing.

 

[CradleCath]

=inocente;7159599]Some alternate views about what is written on our hearts.

In Luke 10:25-37 when asked the important question Who is my neighbor? Jesus doesn’t provide a set of rules or even a methodology. Instead He teaches us by telling a story where the good guy works it out for himself.

Paul is likewise flexible - as in all of 1 Cor 13. (Romans 2:14-15 is then about instinctive morality supplemented by individual conscience, while 2:16 is about God judging how well we did.)

Yes,
Romans 2:14-15 tells us that the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,

That’s a good Scriptural confirmation of the Natural Law. However, I’m saying that those born before Christ, those living outside of Scripture can KNOW the basics of morality, because of their ability to reason.

Aquinas says, concerning positive (man-made) laws, that, they certainly should be, and be presumed to have been, “derived from natural law”.

" from the mere human law, they have the knowledge of" {good & evil}
“ex sola lege humana vigorem habet:”

 

[CradleCath]

cradlecath;7157912]

however, there shouldn’t be an argument. As i explained, some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and** are discoverable by human reason without reference to specific legislative enactments or judicial decisions.** natural law is opposed to positive law, which is human-made, conditioned by history, and subject to continuous change.

Sorry, the sentence in red, should say that natural law is **sometimes **opposed to positive law. positive law saying that abortion upon demand is legal. When our nations laws are contrary to natural law, chaos & destruction will follow.