Natural law v. theology

[spencelo]

Is there a difference between the two? Many on here have invoked natural law in their justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and some have claimed that the “natural law argument” is a completely secular justification against SSM. I highly doubt that’s true: that is, I doubt that the “natural law argument” against SSM is really much different than the “Catholic argument” against SSM. Am I wrong?

 

[Stephen168]

Is there a difference between the two? Many on here have invoked natural law in their justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and some have claimed that the “natural law argument” is a completely secular justification against SSM. I highly doubt that’s true: that is, I doubt that the “natural law argument” against SSM is really much different than the “Catholic argument” against SSM. Am I wrong?

Yes

 

[spencelo]

Yes

Explanation?

 

[Thaelros]

Here is a good summary of the differences between the laws. stpeterslist.com/4161/think-like-a-catholic-7-questions-on-the-four-laws/

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Natural law is often misunderstood. It is a system to try and discern a moral code using rational thought. We do this by looking at the “nature” of the world-as in, what are objects “meant” to do?

This sounds weird put like that; it’s an ultra-ultra simplified explanation. As always, I recommend reading Dr. Feser for details.

Here’s a good summary by Feser: libertylawsite.org/liberty-forum/natural-law-natural-rights-and-private-property/

In this he deals specifically with private property, but he gives a good sketch on natural law in the first section after the introduction entitled “Natural Law”. I recommend reading that whole section, 3 paragraphs long, for a very quick run-down on natural law.

A snippet:

**Now practical reason, on this view, has as its own natural end the pursuit of what the intellect perceives to be good for us and the avoidance of what it takes to be bad. Hence Aquinas’s famous claim that the self-evident first principle of natural law is that good is to be done and pursued and evil is to be avoided. Aquinas was not suggesting that it is self-evident that we are bound by the moral law. What he means is that it is self-evident that whenever we choose to do something, we do so because we regard it as good in some way or other, and that when we avoid doing something we do so because we regard it as bad in some way or other. This is true even of someone who is convinced that what he is doing is morally wrong. The mugger who admits that robbery is evil nevertheless takes his victim’s wallet because he thinks it would be good to have some money to pay for his drugs; the drug addict who knows that his habit is wrong and degrading nevertheless thinks it would be bad to suffer the unpleasantness of withdrawal; and so forth. We are simply built to pursue good and avoid evil in this thin sense. But suppose that the intellect comes to perceive that what is in fact good for us is to realize the ends that nature has set for us and to avoid anything that frustrates the realization of those ends. Then to the extent that we are rational we will strive to realize those ends. In short, reason is built to pursue what it takes to be good; what is in fact good is the realization of the ends set for us by nature; and thus a rational person apprised of the facts will seek to realize those ends. In this sense to be moral is simply to act rationally and to be immoral is to be irrational. The obligatory force of morality thus follows from the natural end or final cause of reason, just as the content of morality follows from the natural ends or final causes of our various capacities more generally. Morality, for the classical philosophical tradition, is thus doubly dependent on an essentialist and teleological conception of nature. **

Notice that God isn’t mentioned once in that paragraph.

 

[spencelo]

Here is a good summary of the differences between the laws. stpeterslist.com/4161/think-like-a-catholic-7-questions-on-the-four-laws/

“Natural Law is the imprint of God’s Eternal Law upon creatures”

This confirms my initial suspicion that “natural law” is pretty much the same as Catholic theology.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

“Natural Law is the imprint of God’s Eternal Law upon creatures”

This confirms my initial suspicion that “natural law” is pretty much the same as Catholic theology.

How? It doesn’t really tell me anything about the difference between theology and natural law.

 

[spencelo]

Natural law is often misunderstood. It is a system to try and discern a moral code using rational thought.

Let’s try this exercise then. Derive a moral proposition using “rational thought” that doesn’t make an implicit reference to Catholic theology.

 

[spencelo]

How? It doesn’t really tell me anything about the difference between theology and natural law.

But that’s my whole question: is there a difference? The quote suggests that there is no difference.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s try this exercise then. Derive a moral proposition using “rational thought” that doesn’t make an implicit reference to Catholic theology.

Okay. Let’s take lying.

Lying is always intrinsically wrong. It is directly contrary to the natural end of our communicative faculties, which is to convey what is really in our minds.

There. Lying is contrary to the natural end of speaking, communication, and is thus always wrong.

Very, very simplified, but there you go. An example in action.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The quote suggests that there is no difference.

How? It suggests nothing to me of the sort.

 

[spencelo]

Okay. Let’s take lying.

Lying is always intrinsically wrong. It is directly contrary to the natural end of our communicative faculties, which is to convey what is really in our minds.

There. Lying is contrary to the natural end of speaking, communication, and is thus always wrong.

This isn’t persuasive at all. First, you start with the assumption that the “natural end of our communicative faculties” is to “convey what is really in our minds.” Why do you suppose that is our “natural end?” Second, why would doing something contrary to our “natural end of speaking” be “always wrong?” Suppose I lie to mislead a would-be murderer. Is my lie “intrinsically wrong?” I don’t see how.

How? It suggests nothing to me of the sort.

Here’s the quote again: “Natural Law **is **the imprint of God’s Eternal Law upon creatures” (emphasis added). The quote identifies “natural law” with “God’s Eternal Law,” thereby linking “natural law” with theology .

 

[Marc_Anthony]

This isn’t persuasive at all. First, you start with the assumption that the “natural end of our communicative faculties” is to “convey what is really in our minds.” Why do you suppose that is our “natural end?” Second, why would doing something contrary to our “natural end of speaking” be “always wrong?” Suppose I lie to mislead a would-be murderer. Is my lie “intrinsically wrong?” I don’t see how.

It isn’t meant to be persuasive. You didn’t ask me to persuade you, you asked me to give you an example of natural law that takes no recourse in Catholic theology. So I gave you one.

To persuade you would take somebody far smarter than me. I’m only 18. Why do you think I link to other sources? It’s because they explain things far better than I ever could.

I found the arguments very persuasive, but to explain them in an easily digestible way to somebody else? It wold take somebody far smarter than me.

In any case, I gave you what you asked for, an example of natural law philosophy being applied with no recourse to Catholic theology. I didn’t make it up. I got it from Thomistic philosopher Dr. Edward Feser, almost word for word: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-it-wrong-to-lie-to-hal.html

(And yes, I believe lying to be wrong in EVERY circumstance; it’s a difficult thing to accept but as somebody who believes in the Thomistic conception of natural law I have to be consistent or else I’d be hypocritical.)

Here’s the quote again: “Natural Law **is **the imprint of God’s Eternal Law upon creatures” (emphasis added). The quote identifies “natural law” with “God’s Eternal Law,” thereby linking “natural law” with theology .

I see nothing in there about Catholicism. Only theism.

 

[spencelo]

It isn’t meant to be persuasive. You didn’t ask me to persuade you, you asked me to give you an example of natural law that takes no recourse in Catholic theology. So I gave you one.

To persuade you would take somebody far smarter than me. I’m only 18. Why do you think I link to other sources? It’s because they explain things far better than I ever could.

I found the arguments very persuasive, but to explain them in an easily digestible way to somebody else? It wold take somebody far smarter than me.

In any case, I gave you what you asked for, an example of natural law philosophy being applied with no recourse to Catholic theology. I didn’t make it up. I got it from Thomistic philosopher Dr. Edward Feser, almost word for word: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-it-wrong-to-lie-to-hal.html

(And yes, I believe lying to be wrong in EVERY circumstance; it’s a difficult thing to accept but as somebody who believes in the Thomistic conception of natural law I have to be consistent or else I’d be hypocritical.)

Given that there are HUGE gaps between your starting premise and the conclusion that “lying is always wrong,” it’s not clear that your example of “natural law reasoning” doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology. I’m looking for an example that doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology once it’s fully probed.

Consider your first claim that the “natural end” of our communicative faculties is to “convey what is really in our minds.” But here’s another possibility: the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey.” Why suppose that the latter possibility isn’t the *true *“natural end?” (Remember, your answer to this question cannot appeal to Catholic theology.)

I see nothing in there about Catholicism. Only theism.

The quote identifies natural law with “God’s Eternal Law.” By “God,” I assume the article meant the God of Christianity. by “Eternal Law,” I assume the article meant the moral commandants of God, which are supposedly explicated in the Bible.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Given that there are HUGE gaps between your starting premise and the conclusion that “lying is always wrong,” it’s not clear that your example of “natural law reasoning” doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology. I’m looking for an example that doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology once it’s fully probed.

Consider your first claim that the “natural end” of our communicative faculties is to “convey what is really in our minds.” But here’s another possibility: the natural end of our communicative faculties is to “convey what we wish to convey.” Why suppose that the latter possibility isn’t the *true *“natural end?” (Remember, your answer to this question cannot appeal to Catholic theology.)

There a LOT of reasons for this…not even all Catholics believe in the Thomistic version of Natural Law theology. Some agree with you and think lying to save somebody is fine, and according to Catholic teaching that belief is not heresy.

So why, specifically? I’m not sure. But you have an attitude I see typical of a lot of atheists, frankly. You look at a common theistic belief, like natural law. You say you don’t understand it. We gave a basic explanation of what it is, and then you poke holes in the “Basic” objection and act as if they’re these glancing blows that no Natural Law theorist has ever found a solution to.

Do you really think that the hundreds of philosophers who believe in Natural Law can’t answer your question?

Can I, in detail? No. But I’m no expert, I just learned from them. Try actually learning what real philosophers have to say to objections before assuming “Well, that’s it. Now you have to resort to Catholic theology.”

Read Feser’s essay. He mentions Catholic theology not once. I suggest e-mailing him with all of your objections. (I am being 100% serious, I e-mailed him with a question and he responded within a day). Or buy his book “The Last Superstition”.

The quote identifies natural law with “God’s Eternal Law.” By “God,” I assume the article meant the God of Christianity. by “Eternal Law,” I assume the article meant the moral commandants of God, which are supposedly explicated in the Bible.

“God” is the God of classical Theism, with the qualities of God that Saint Thomas proved in the Summa Theologica. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship this God, but it’s hardly our fault that this God is the one St. Thomas proved to have existed.

“God’s eternal law” is merely a description of natural law, like saying “A car is a metal vehicle with four wheels directed by a person who controls its movements.” Or, “spaghetti is an Italian pasta”.

 

[spencelo]

Do you really think that the hundreds of philosophers who believe in Natural Law can’t answer your question?

No, not adequately - but I’d love to see them try. I have other objections as well.

Can I, in detail? No. But I’m no expert, I just learned from them. Try actually learning what real philosophers have to say to objections before assuming “Well, that’s it. Now you have to resort to Catholic theology.”

I wasn’t “assuming” that - I have a suspicion, which is based on the observation that people who hold to “natural law” also embrace Catholic theology. Are all of your “natural law” beliefs consistent with all of your Catholic beliefs in regards to morality? In order words, can you think of a moral proposition derived from the Bible that contradicts a moral proposition derived from natural law? If not, then that is highly coincidental (suspiciously so).

(Btw, if you’re no expert on natural law, then why believe in it? Why believe that the moral propositions derived from “rational thought,” via natural law reasoning, are true? Why believe that lying is always wrong when you can’t give more than a elementary defense of such a counter-intuitive proposition?)

Read Feser’s essay. He mentions Catholic theology not once. I suggest e-mailing him with all of your objections. (I am being 100% serious, I e-mailed him with a question and he responded within a day). Or buy his book “The Last Superstition”.

Maybe I will. But what’s clear is this: it’s certainly not obvious that natural law doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology at some point when deriving moral propositions from “rational thought.”

“God” is the God of classical Theism, with the qualities of God that Saint Thomas proved in the Summa Theologica. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all worship this God, but it’s hardly our fault that this God is the one St. Thomas proved to have existed.

“God’s eternal law” is merely a description of natural law, like saying “A car is a metal vehicle with four wheels directed by a person who controls its movements.” Or, “spaghetti is an Italian pasta”.

Doesn’t “God’s eternal law” mean the laws that God himself has commanded? If so, *which *laws are those? Are they the laws of the Bible? (Another coincidence?). If one adds “God of classical Theism” + “laws he commanded,” one comes (again) suspiciously close to the God mentioned in the Bible (and thus Catholic theology.)

 

[spencelo]

Lying is always intrinsically wrong. It is directly contrary to the natural end of our communicative faculties, which is to convey what is really in our minds.

Another objection.

Suppose A is out to murder my friend. In my mind, I think about telling A that my friend went home, which would be a lie, in order to mislead him. So I then tell A what I thought about telling A. My lie therefore conveyed something that was really in my mind - namely, my thought about telling A a lie. In this example, my lie wasn’t “directly contrary to the natural end of our communicative faculties.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I wasn’t “assuming” that - I have a suspicion, which is based on the observation that people who hold to “natural law” also embrace Catholic theology. Are all of your “natural law” beliefs consistent with all of your Catholic beliefs in regards to morality? In order words, can you think of a moral proposition derived from the Bible that contradicts a moral proposition derived from natural law? If not, then that is highly coincidental (suspiciously so).

It’s not coincidental because the Church derives her theology from natural law, not the other way around.

(Btw, if you’re no expert on natural law, then why believe in it? Why believe that the moral propositions derived from “rational thought,” via natural law reasoning, are true? Why believe that lying is always wrong when you can’t give more than a elementary defense of such a counter-intuitive proposition?)

Good question. Several answers:

1. I might not be an expert but I’ve read them and I find natural law philosophy to be extremely compelling. I may not be able to spit out arguments but when Thomists do I find them extremely convincing.
2. The vast majority of their conclusions make sense to me. Even lying; it just “feels” wrong. It takes some rational thought to reason it out but the conclusion that it’s always wrong doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me.
3. I have to choose SOME philosophy. Since I don’t plan on being a philosopher I picked the one that convinced me. I’d be an atheist if I didn’t believe Thomism.

Maybe I will. But what’s clear is this: it’s certainly not obvious that natural law doesn’t appeal to Catholic theology at some point when deriving moral propositions from “rational thought.”

You need to PROVE your claim. The fact is if you read discussions and treatsies from philosophers about natural law, they do NOT take recourse in Catholic theology. Like Dr. Feser’s paper.

The fact that when Catholics discuss natural law they mention Catholic theology a lot is hardly surprising. Look at sources that don’t try to be theological-like Feser’s paper.

Doesn’t “God’s eternal law” mean the laws that God himself has commanded? If so, *which *laws are those? Are they the laws of the Bible? (Another coincidence?). If one adds “God of classical Theism” + “laws he commanded,” one comes (again) suspiciously close to the God mentioned in the Bible (and thus Catholic theology.)

1. Sure. Natural Law is willed by God, so it is in one sense the laws he commanded.
2. They’re not exactly the laws of the Bible. Certain “laws” of the Bible can’t be reasoned through Natural Law-like Mass on Sundays, and a lot of the old levitical laws. But once the New Covenant was created the Old Covenant was finished, and now we are bound to believe directly what the Bible teaches us, what we know from Sacred Tradition, and what we can reason from Natural Law.

Of COURSE Catholic theology matches with Natural Law. It’s modelled after it, not the other way around. St. Thomas’s philosophy was NOT uncontroversial when he first established it, partly because he drew on so many pagan philosophers. It took years for the Church to accept his philosophy, and even know Catholics don’t technically HAVE to accept it; I do because I happen to think it’s correct.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Another objection.

Suppose A is out to murder my friend. In my mind, I think about telling A that my friend went home, which would be a lie, in order to mislead him. So I then tell A what I thought about telling A. My lie therefore conveyed something that was really in my mind - namely, my thought about telling A a lie. In this example, my lie wasn’t “directly contrary to the natural end of our communicative faculties.”

The thing is, Natural Law philosophers already thought of objections like this; do you really think you’re the first one? I highly doubt they’ll crumble under these objections.

 

[spencelo]

It’s not coincidental because the Church derives her theology from natural law, not the other way around.

Really? Doesn’t the church derive a lot of its theology from the Bible?

Let’s consider a another example – homosexuality. I know that the Bible says it’s wrong. Prove that homosexuality is wrong via natural law without appealing (either implicitly or explicitly) to God.

1. The vast majority of their conclusions make sense to me. Even lying; it just “feels” wrong. It takes some rational thought to reason it out but the conclusion that it’s always wrong doesn’t seem that far-fetched to me.

I offered what you considered a “basic objection” to your argument, but you are unable to refute it. If you can’t refute a “basic objection” to your argument, then your position is on highly questionable foundation.

1. I have to choose SOME philosophy.

Or you can withhold judgment until you’ve studied more.

You need to PROVE your claim. The fact is if you read discussions and treatsies from philosophers about natural law, they do NOT take recourse in Catholic theology. Like Dr. Feser’s paper.

I wasn’t asserting as fact that “natural law arguments” were making appeals to Catholic theology, but it seems like that is what’s going on at some level. If Feser (or some expert) were to subject himself to my questioning, then perhaps we could get to the bottom of the matter.

1. They’re not exactly the laws of the Bible.

Right, and I never made this claim. What I’m saying is that natural law arguments, at some point, implicitly make appeals to currently accepted Biblical propositions. Moreover, isn’t true that “God’s Eternal laws” (from the quote) refer to at least some laws mentioned in the Bible? Yes or no?