B
billcu1
Guest
Now natural law has nothing to do with nature does it but the natural outcome of things right? How does one know the outcome of things? This is I guess how the church knows right from wrong.
- Status
F
FrancisBenedict
Guest
The ends don’t justify wrong means though.
How do we all know the outcome? Because it happens!
The Law of God is the Law of Love and above ‘natural’ law.
Pax vobiscum+
How do we all know the outcome? Because it happens!
The Law of God is the Law of Love and above ‘natural’ law.
Pax vobiscum+
P
polytropos
Guest
Natural law is derived from nature, ie. what man can know by reason. Positive law is God’s revealed law. The Church acknowledges both of them.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Nope. The Church knows right from wrong because the Holy Spirit guides her in all things. It happens that in the Christian West, Natural Law is a significant means by which the Holy Spirit instructs us. It is neither the source nor the end of knowledge for us, however.
P
polytropos
Guest
It should also be noted that we may not interpret natural law correctly without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Plato and Aristotle did not get it all right.
A
Abu
Guest
The Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in* De Republica*, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”
The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.
Christ’s Church “knows right from wrong” because He is God, and She is founded by Him to lead mankind to heaven:
It was Jesus who said to His apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.
Christ’s Church “knows right from wrong” because He is God, and She is founded by Him to lead mankind to heaven:
It was Jesus who said to His apostles “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16)
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].
Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
F
fhansen
Guest
Natural law has to do with the nature of man-how we were created to behave, etc
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Natural law refers to the innate moral principle in Man that can be discovered through reason. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with consequences or biology, though may involve them.
T
Tyrion
Guest
If only someone would make at least an approximate or partial list of the “DO”-s and “DON’T”-s which comprise that “natural moral law”. After all we are all aware (or should be aware) that the rules of socially acceptable behavior keep changing from society to society and from time to time.
F
fhansen
Guest
The ten commandments are considered to be such a list, the natural law said to be based on God’s “eternal law”.
J
Jim_Baur
Guest
I believe in One God, the maker of Heaven and earth, etc…
The following is a different way of saying natural law.
The laws of the physical world are observed by human logic. So, too, are the natural laws of ethics.
Logic is also correct in the area of ethics.
Example, one can easily see that sobriety is logical and drunkenness is illogical.
Any mind altering substances cause us to be illogical.
Example, two loving parents are better than dropping a child off at an orphanage.
So, sobriety is better than drunkenness, and love is better than deserting one’s child.
These are truly enlightened ideas and this is accomplished by our ability to reason. They are logical.
Concerning the logical arguments for a being(s) making this planet, it is clear that earth filled with life is made and beautifully designed by some powerful being(s). The being(s) must be way above our intelligence.
The complexity of a giant red wood, to the largest whales, to the human being and all of our powers, point to this or these super being(s). (I will now just try to say beings.)
Also, the beings that made us might have been made by other even more superior beings.
Also, the beings that made us may passed out of existence. If they were made by other beings, those beings could have not become extinct.
The creating beings could be limited to the physical and spiritual realms to which we are limited.
They could even have “children” or descendents. The fact that there may be development of life, perhaps this is a series of many generations. That is, maybe that which some think is evolution is in fact similar to the primitive cars compared to the jets and rockets of today.
These ideas are more logical than saying, all of the logic that we discern in the physical world happened by chance, mutation, chaos, and accident.
The following is a different way of saying natural law.
The laws of the physical world are observed by human logic. So, too, are the natural laws of ethics.
Logic is also correct in the area of ethics.
Example, one can easily see that sobriety is logical and drunkenness is illogical.
Any mind altering substances cause us to be illogical.
Example, two loving parents are better than dropping a child off at an orphanage.
So, sobriety is better than drunkenness, and love is better than deserting one’s child.
These are truly enlightened ideas and this is accomplished by our ability to reason. They are logical.
Concerning the logical arguments for a being(s) making this planet, it is clear that earth filled with life is made and beautifully designed by some powerful being(s). The being(s) must be way above our intelligence.
The complexity of a giant red wood, to the largest whales, to the human being and all of our powers, point to this or these super being(s). (I will now just try to say beings.)
Also, the beings that made us might have been made by other even more superior beings.
Also, the beings that made us may passed out of existence. If they were made by other beings, those beings could have not become extinct.
The creating beings could be limited to the physical and spiritual realms to which we are limited.
They could even have “children” or descendents. The fact that there may be development of life, perhaps this is a series of many generations. That is, maybe that which some think is evolution is in fact similar to the primitive cars compared to the jets and rockets of today.
These ideas are more logical than saying, all of the logic that we discern in the physical world happened by chance, mutation, chaos, and accident.
A
Abu
Guest
The natural moral law is God’s ordinance as to how mankind ought to act, and enables the vision of reality in this world – to act in accordance with the natural moral law is to act by the reality of things – that is sanity.
From the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor:
Our human nature (which points us to our natural perfection or to the fundamental human goods) and our reason (by which we understand that these goods are to be pursued) are both created by God. Thus, our nature and our reason together are directives from God, ordering (orienting) us to our good and to the attainment of part of God’s plan. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *defines law in general – a definition of law that will apply to any type of law, whether it be civil law, Church law, or some other law – as “a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good” (CCC 1951). Since God is the ruler of the whole universe, and God created our reason and human nature, those basic moral truths are rightly called natural moral law.
Take an example:
Fr Harvey (The Truth About Homosexulaity, Ignatius, 1990, p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:
From the Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor:
Our human nature (which points us to our natural perfection or to the fundamental human goods) and our reason (by which we understand that these goods are to be pursued) are both created by God. Thus, our nature and our reason together are directives from God, ordering (orienting) us to our good and to the attainment of part of God’s plan. Following St. Thomas Aquinas, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church *defines law in general – a definition of law that will apply to any type of law, whether it be civil law, Church law, or some other law – as “a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good” (CCC 1951). Since God is the ruler of the whole universe, and God created our reason and human nature, those basic moral truths are rightly called natural moral law.
Take an example:
Fr Harvey (The Truth About Homosexulaity, Ignatius, 1990, p 134-138) shows that the act of homosexual intercourse lacks the two components that make sexual intercourse natural:
- The gastrointestinal tract is a hole running through the body – oral or anal intercourse remains on the surface and is not inside the human being in the way that vaginal intercourse is about a real physical union.
- Since the homosexual act cannot be procreative it cannot unify those engaged in it by tending toward a child who will have characteristics of both parents.
D
djeter
Guest
And you are aware, of course, that your arguments would be thrown out in the courts. Please note there is a second post on the topic, accessible from the top of the page.
dj
A
Abu
Guest
The reasons presented are from St Thomas Aquinas and the CCC, and the “courts” of the land cannot change or ignore the natural moral law and remain objective or worthy of respect – reform the society and the morals and change the judges.
Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).
The world is in such a mess because people don’t reason correctly, or reject the reasonable for selfism – they don’t understand how they are harmed and harm others by their actions. This permeates marriage, the family, society and nations. Certainly we need faith and reason for real success in conquering our fallen nature, but it is because of poor or false formation in thinking that we act foolishly. As you think so do you act.
What is at stake is the essence of the law of nature or the natural moral law. The objective is to be able to refute all of the commonly held and promoted false opinions on abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research (SCR) and more, on the basis of human reason. Doctrine enables us to be infallibly certain of what reason upholds, for it is false reasoning and/or uncontrolled emotions and wills, which have produced so many terrible assaults on mankind since time began.
As Pope Francis emphasises:
‘Being in this family means that God “urges us to escape from individualism, the tendency to withdraw into ourselves, and calls us – convokes us – to be a part of his family.” ’
‘the Church manifests itself when “the gift of the Holy Spirit fills the hearts of the Apostles and pushes them to go out and start the journey to proclaim the Gospel, to spread the love of God,” Pope Francis added.’
Pope: Jesus’ plan for humanity requires Catholic Church
VATICAN CITY, May 29 (CNA/EWTN News) .-
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-jesus-plan-for-humanity-requires-catholic-church/
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
There have been lists that some philosophers have conjectured, and the point about the Ten Commandments made by another poster is a good one. There are some pretty obvious examples, e.g. it is wrong to deliberately kill an innocent human being; rape is wrong; genocide of human beings is wrong; wanton destruction is wrong; it’s good to treat others as you want to be treated; cowardice is bad and bravery is good; etc.
Most people who disagree on these points might disagree on the facts (e.g. for the Nazis: are Jews human beings?) rather than on the moral principle.
T
Tyrion
Guest
The ten commandments are NOT a good example. These alleged “natural” laws are supposed to be uniform from the cave-men onwards, existing in every society. And no cave-man was aware of those commandments enumerated in the ten commandments. Back then and in some societies today the concept of “private property” simply did not exist, people where not even aware who their parents are… etc. Not to mention the “Sabbath”, and the prohibition against worshipping “false gods”.
(Every time I see “false” gods, I must laugh out loud.)In many, violent societies the wanton killing was accepted as a way of life (for example in the medieval Japan). Cowardice is the “better part of valor”, bravery can be idiotic against overwhelming odds… etc.
The only principle you can bring up is the different varieties of the golden rule, which was accepted in MANY, but not ALL societies - as such even that is not uniform. So the “list” is simply nonexistent, and it was never “inscribed” on the human heart! (What a ridiculous euphemism). Never mind that many people consider that Christian prohibition against non-procreative sex is part of that nebulous “natural law”. Or public nudity, or performing sex in plain view of others…
A
Abu
Guest
From J. Budziszewski, “Preface” from *The Line Through the Heart: Natural Law as Fact, Theory, and Sign of Contradiction *(Downer’s Grove, IL: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2009).
‘This book is about natural law – about the foundational principles of good and evil inscribed in created human nature…. The foundational principles of good and evil are the natural or moral law; of regime design, constitutional law; and of day-to-day legislative enactment, ordinary law.
‘Even Aristotle, who is supposed to be the paradigm case of a moral philosopher who talked only about virtue and not about law, talked about law. He holds that the man of practical wisdom acts according to a rational principle; this principle functions as law. He holds that virtue lies in a mean, but that there is no mean of things like adultery; this implies that there are exceptionless precepts, which also function as law. He holds that besides the enactments of governments and the customs of peoples there is an unwritten norm to which governments and peoples defer; this norm too is a law. Consciousness of law creeps in through the back door even when it is pushed out the front, and Aristotle wasn’t even pushing.
‘In this book, whenever the term “revelation” is used without qualification it refers to direct or special revelation, what God has revealed to the community of faith. By contrast, general revelation is what God has revealed to the entire human race through the grace of creation, including the resources of intellect and conscience. The euphemism of what the mind can know ‘by itself’ or ‘without help’ thus really refers to what the mind can know without extra help.’
Because the rulers of the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice says nothing against the natural law against murder – merely the self–will of the ruling clique. It is interesting that one of the Aztec priests was forced out of central Mexico in the 10th century because he opposed human sacrifice. “Nowhere else in history has Satan so formalized and institutionalized his worship with so many of his actual titles and symbols.” (The Cleaving of Christendom, Dr Warren H Carroll, Christendom Press, 2000, p 23).
“What is culturally relative is opinions about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves.” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft & Ronald K Tacelli, S.J., IVP 1994, p 375-6 – on the Aztec slaughter).
catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0003.htm
‘This book is about natural law – about the foundational principles of good and evil inscribed in created human nature…. The foundational principles of good and evil are the natural or moral law; of regime design, constitutional law; and of day-to-day legislative enactment, ordinary law.
‘Even Aristotle, who is supposed to be the paradigm case of a moral philosopher who talked only about virtue and not about law, talked about law. He holds that the man of practical wisdom acts according to a rational principle; this principle functions as law. He holds that virtue lies in a mean, but that there is no mean of things like adultery; this implies that there are exceptionless precepts, which also function as law. He holds that besides the enactments of governments and the customs of peoples there is an unwritten norm to which governments and peoples defer; this norm too is a law. Consciousness of law creeps in through the back door even when it is pushed out the front, and Aristotle wasn’t even pushing.
‘In this book, whenever the term “revelation” is used without qualification it refers to direct or special revelation, what God has revealed to the community of faith. By contrast, general revelation is what God has revealed to the entire human race through the grace of creation, including the resources of intellect and conscience. The euphemism of what the mind can know ‘by itself’ or ‘without help’ thus really refers to what the mind can know without extra help.’
Because the rulers of the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice says nothing against the natural law against murder – merely the self–will of the ruling clique. It is interesting that one of the Aztec priests was forced out of central Mexico in the 10th century because he opposed human sacrifice. “Nowhere else in history has Satan so formalized and institutionalized his worship with so many of his actual titles and symbols.” (The Cleaving of Christendom, Dr Warren H Carroll, Christendom Press, 2000, p 23).
“What is culturally relative is opinions about what is really right and wrong, not right and wrong themselves.” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Peter Kreeft & Ronald K Tacelli, S.J., IVP 1994, p 375-6 – on the Aztec slaughter).
catholiceducation.org/articles/philosophy/ph0003.htm
F
fhansen
Guest
The ten commandments, natural, law, eternal law, etc, speak to the way man is meant to be, in terms of objective morality, rather than the way he determines for himself to be. It should be obvious to anyone that man is free to do anything, but societies have included child sacrifice or wholesale rape and torture of ones enemes to be morally acceptable. As a side note I’m unfortunately apparently not as privy as you are to the ways and mentality of cavemen.The ten commandments are NOT a good example. These alleged “natural” laws are supposed to be uniform from the cave-men onwards, existing in every society. And no cave-man was aware of those commandments enumerated in the ten commandments. Back then and in some societies today the concept of “private property” simply did not exist, people where not even aware who their parents are… etc. Not to mention the “Sabbath”, and the prohibition against worshipping “false gods”.
In many, violent societies the wanton killing was accepted as a way of life (for example in the medieval Japan). Cowardice is the “better part of valor”, bravery can be idiotic against overwhelming odds… etc.
The only principle you can bring up is the different varieties of the golden rule, which was accepted in MANY, but not ALL societies - as such even that is not uniform. So the “list” is simply nonexistent, and it was never “inscribed” on the human heart! (What a ridiculous euphemism). Never mind that many people consider that Christian prohibition against non-procreative sex is part of that nebulous “natural law”. Or public nudity, or performing sex in plain view of others…
But we all know honor and valor and justice and love and nobility and integrity when we see them in action-we don’t need to be told, just as we instinctively know many things in life. And if these virtues can be known and identified with, as well as their opposites, cowardice and hatred and selfishness, etc, then this means we possess an innate sense of morality already.
J
jonathan_hili
Guest
Umm I’m not sure how anyone is qualified to talk about cavemen as if we actually know what they thought about their actions on a moral level. Since they lived prehistorically, anything we say is pretty much conjecture.
Really? Which societies would these be where people don’t know who their parents are? It may have been an occurrence in one or two odd exceptions but it certainly isn’t a generalised reality. As for private property, the concept is against “theft”, which means taking property which is not yours, even if it belongs to the state or the whole community.Back then and in some societies today the concept of “private property” simply did not exist, people where not even aware who their parents are… etc. Not to mention the “Sabbath”, and the prohibition against worshipping “false gods”.
You can laugh, but earliest human records show that people would not worship the gods of other societies (“false gods”) and believed that to do so is akin to being a traitor. For example, in Ancient Babylon or Greece.
Wanton killing may have been accepted but it wasn’t morally justified, even in feudal Japan. Sure, bravery can be idiotic but it is always seen as a virtue and cowardice a vice. You won’t find any society where cowardice is treated as a virtue. Obviously, people combine virtues: bravery with wisdom, but not virtues and vices, that is, cowardice with wisdom.
Okay, let me ask you: if natural law does not exist, then morality must be a relative concept, would you agree?
T
Tyrion
Guest
Is it not your conjecture that the “natural moral law” was inscribed on their heart?
“Mater semper certa, pater semper incertus est” - said the ancient Romans. But jokes aside, in ancient and primitive tribes, people had no idea how conception works. Again, the point is that the ten commandments include the command of “honoring your parents”, which presupposes that one knows who those parents are.
What is morally “justified”? It simply was part of the prevailing social custom.
The answer should be obvious. Of course “morality is relative”. The point is that “morality is the set of written and unwritten rules in a specific society in a specific timeframe”. Some rules are codified into laws, others might only carry a social stigma. But there are always exceptions. In most modern cultures there is a strong social taboo (maybe even a law) against cannibalism. Yet, in that sad accident in the Andes, where people HAD to resort to cannibalism, no one “cast the first stone” on them. No one considered their action “immoral”.
Before someone would object that “relative morality” makes it “subjective”, I wish to preempt this nonsense. Morality is “objective”, in any specific society and in any specific timeframe. It exists objectively, whether some specific people agree with it or not. However, it is not “absolute”, it changes from place to place and from time to time.
Just one simple example. Today, in the US there is a taboo against public nudity - but it is NOT absolute. In certain places (nudist colonies) it is permissible, and accepted. My job is simple. All I have to do is give ONE specific example which shows that ONE social taboo is NOT absolute (it is NOT inscribed
rolleyes on the human “heart”) and the concept of “natural moral law” is rendered incorrect. Which I did.- Status