natural law

[SonCatcher]

Tyrion,

You may be responding to a poor explanation of what constitutes Natural Law. It does not follow from cultural mores, so your objection about variation in said mores is not pertinent.

Natural Law refers to a set of universal ideals that can be ascertained through reason, even in contradiction to cultural mores.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Is it not your conjecture that the “natural moral law” was inscribed on their heart?

I don’t think so, since I didn’t mention cavemen. I’m talking about human history, that is, from what we know. We can’t say anything definite about prehistorical humanity with regards to moral beliefs and actions.

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.

Come on, Tyrion, are you saying that ancient peoples and primitive tribes can’t tell that babies are born from women (who are their mothers) and that a man ejaculating inside a woman has an impregnating effect? I mean, these are largely agrarian people who have observed “the birds and the bees”. How ignorant would they really have to be?

What is morally “justified”? It simply was part of the prevailing social custom.

For example, even in feudal Japan, you won’t find anyone morally lauding a man who goes into people’s houses and just slaughters people for fun. They’re not going to say of such a man, “What an honourable, upstanding gentleman. I wish my son was like him! Did you see the way he slit that old man’s throat? Remarkable!”

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…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.

If what you’re saying is correct, then there is no moral reason why someone should not obey the moral code of their society, since any moral reason would be based on the very code that is being doubted. If I thought what you said was true, I would do as I pleased or as was beneficial to me personally, even if it meant breaking the moral code of my society. And there would be no moral reason to condemn this, since there is no over-arching morality that judges between moral codes.

That’s one problem.

Another obvious one is that it means we cannot morally judge different societies and condemn or applaud certain behaviours. We can according to our moral standards but, if we recognise what you say is true, then we have to be honest and say, “Well, it’s only because of our standards - we can’t really blame them.” Morality does become subjective but to a particular society, which is only an extension of individual subjectivity.

If that’s the case, how can we punish those who deviate from the dominant moral code? We can’t appeal to what is “right”, since we know that that is merely what is “popular” or “dominant”. If we go that we, essentially what we’re saying is “might” or “majority opinion” makes right - but this can’t be right either, because it is a moral stance but would itself be part of the same moral code that is being exposed as subjective to the society or culture.

It seems like a mess to me. If we honestly cannot condemn past slavery, genocides or inhumanities with any real sense of truth, then morality is bunk and we would be dishonest to ever condemn or judge anyone.

 

[Tyrion]

I don’t think so, since I didn’t mention cavemen.

Were they humans?

If what you’re saying is correct, then there is no moral reason why someone should not obey the moral code of their society, since any moral reason would be based on the very code that is being doubted. If I thought what you said was true, I would do as I pleased or as was beneficial to me personally, even if it meant breaking the moral code of my society. And there would be no moral reason to condemn this, since there is no over-arching morality that judges between moral codes.

I don’t know about you, but I think that a reasonable compromise is a wise way to act, when one willingly discards certain, selfish actions, because on the long run it is more beneficial to engage in a give-and-take, rather then try to grab everything. But that is only my opinion - based upon the mathematical “game theory”. Your mileage may vary.

Another obvious one is that it means we cannot morally judge different societies and condemn or applaud certain behaviours. We can according to our moral standards but, if we recognise what you say is true, then we have to be honest and say, “Well, it’s only because of our standards - we can’t really blame them.” Morality does become subjective but to a particular society, which is only an extension of individual subjectivity.

Funny, you should say that in a disapproving manner. That is exactly and precisely what your brethren keep saying when one asks about certain passages of the bible, which endorse slavery… the answer is: “but those were different times, with different customs”. Which is true, of course. If those were described in a simple history book, no one would be surprised. The problem only comes when those customs are part of the “unchanging, inerrant word of God”. Just a few decades ago, certain parts of the bible were used to justify slavery, and discrimination… just like today some people try to use some, carefully selected Levitican laws to disparage homosexuals, and discriminate against them.

If that’s the case, how can we punish those who deviate from the dominant moral code? We can’t appeal to what is “right”, since we know that that is merely what is “popular” or “dominant”. If we go that we, essentially what we’re saying is “might” or “majority opinion” makes right - but this can’t be right either, because it is a moral stance but would itself be part of the same moral code that is being exposed as subjective to the society or culture.

It seems like a mess to me. If we honestly cannot condemn past slavery, genocides or inhumanities with any real sense of truth, then morality is bunk and we would be dishonest to ever condemn or judge anyone.

Every system is based upon the maxim of: “might makes right”. Sad, but true. The powerful always impose their rules upon the weak. The government declares that one cannot import life saving, but unapproved drugs for their own use… and there you are… a criminal for trying to save your life. (This is a fact, not fiction.) You say, it is a mess? You bet it is. And when one asks why does God allow/perform some actions, the final reply is always: “God is boss, he can do whatever he pleases”. Might makes right… and you don’t like it? There would be only one moral system, which should be universal: “live and let live”.

 

[Abu]

Tyrion #23
your brethren keep saying when one asks about certain passages of the bible, which endorse slavery… the answer is: “but those were different times, with different customs”. Which is true, of course. If those were described in a simple history book, no one would be surprised. The problem only comes when those customs are part of the “unchanging, inerrant word of God”. Just a few decades ago, certain parts of the bible were used to justify slavery, and discrimination… just like today some people try to use some, carefully selected Levitican laws to disparage homosexuals, and discriminate against them.

The simplistic errors here show a false view of reality.

First, while God allowed slavery, it was not positively commanded by God. In Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. The verse here talks about the regulation of slaves and therefore is an implicit endorsement of slavery. But this is a far cry from God commanding the Israelites to have slaves. This difference is important because the death penalty, unlike slavery, is firmly commanded by God, not merely permitted.

Secondly, what is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it. When we 21st century people think of slaves and slavery, what comes to mind right away is the horrible atrocities committed by white men against blacks in the United States mostly during the 1800’s. But this is not the kind of slavery we read about in the Sacred Scriptures. God asked the Israelites to treat their servants well. Also, as pointed out in Leviticus 22: 10-11, the servants or slaves had some privileges which even some Israelites did not.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8 Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.

By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.

Dr Rodney Stark: “The theological conclusion that slavery is sinful has been unique to Christianity (although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery).”

Re the homosexual disorder, the Catholic Church warns against unjust discrimination whether against homosexuals or anyone else. What She teaches is that unchaste actions by anyone are sins, as Her Sacred Scripture shows

 

[Tyrion]

First, while God allowed slavery, it was not positively commanded by God.

Are you familiar with the phrase: “ssdd”? Loosely expanded: “same stuff, different day”. Commanded or allowed both mean endorsement. But this is not the issue here. The point is that certain customs were acceptable and considered “moral” in certain times, while they are not acceptable and not moral in other times. We could choose the Levitican rule of not mixing meat and dairy products on the plate, or wearing clothes made of different fabrics - for all I care. Morality is simply the set of socially accepted customs, nothing more, nothing less. As such, it changes with time. And [you] sometimes admit and other times deny that [edit].

 

[JamesATyler]

There would be only one moral system, which should be universal: “live and let live”.

Well that system fails mighty quick.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Were they humans?

Obviously they were, but how precisely they would have been able to discern natural law (since it does require some sophistication) and questions like that, I don’t think we can answer. My conjecture is that there is no reason to suppose they would not be able to reason morally from natural law because, as you rightly point out, they were human.

I don’t know about you, but I think that a reasonable compromise is a wise way to act, when one willingly discards certain, selfish actions, because on the long run it is more beneficial to engage in a give-and-take, rather then try to grab everything.

But I don’t mean acting according to wisdom (whatever that may be: survival value? beneficence? happiness?) but from a moral standpoint. Unless it is morally good and right to act wisely, why should anybody act wisely, unless a person has already decided for himself a standard to accord wisdom, e.g. whatever brings me pleasure. If such a standard is decided upon, then it’s difficult to see how anyone can agree. If I think it’s wise to get as much pleasure as possible, you think it’s wise to help as many as possible, and Fred thinks it’s wise to act in a way that maximises survival, we are all going to act from a different standpoint of wisdom, none of which could be said to be morally good or right.

Funny, you should say that in a disapproving manner. That is exactly and precisely what your brethren keep saying when one asks about certain passages of the bible, which endorse slavery… the answer is: “but those were different times, with different customs”. Which is true, of course. If those were described in a simple history book, no one would be surprised. The problem only comes when those customs are part of the “unchanging, inerrant word of God”. Just a few decades ago, certain parts of the bible were used to justify slavery, and discrimination… just like today some people try to use some, carefully selected Levitican laws to disparage homosexuals, and discriminate against them.

Wow, good way to come down from discussing arguments, Tyrion, to attacking people. The ironic thing is, that from my moral perspective, I can actually condemn slavery and those who supported it, but you can’t from yours. (Incidentally, I think you will find that a sophisticated response to the Bible and slavery is that certain evils were condoned because of the socio-historical context, but not that certain evils were not evils.) Furthermore, what’s wrong with discriminating against homosexuals? If my Catholic community think it’s morally right to do so (which I’m not arguing, but obviously being facetious), then how can you condemn us, as if morality were somehow universally objective?

Every system is based upon the maxim of: “might makes right”. Sad, but true. The powerful always impose their rules upon the weak. The government declares that one cannot import life saving, but unapproved drugs for their own use… and there you are… a criminal for trying to save your life. (This is a fact, not fiction.) You say, it is a mess? You bet it is. And when one asks why does God allow/perform some actions, the final reply is always: “God is boss, he can do whatever he pleases”. Might makes right… and you don’t like it? There would be only one moral system, which should be universal: “live and let live”.

I think you’re confusing the ontological truth of a system with how it is imposed. 1+1=2 even if it is believed by consensus or inculcated through a tyrannical education system. Also, if might did make right (that is, actually made things right as opposed to imposing beliefs on others), then you would not find people who disagree with particular moral precepts of the majority’s system, but you often find this is true.

Now, you say that “live and let live” should be universal. Is that a moral belief? If so, is that your community’s belief or is it actually universal? If it is just your community’s belief, then if you wish to impose it universally, you would just be imposing “might is right” again!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Are you familiar with the phrase: “ssdd”? Loosely expanded: “same stuff, different day”. Commanded or allowed both mean endorsement. But this is not the issue here. The point is that certain customs were acceptable and considered “moral” in certain times, while they are not acceptable and not moral in other times. We could choose the Levitican rule of not mixing meat and dairy products on the plate, or wearing clothes made of different fabrics - for all I care. Morality is simply the set of socially accepted customs, nothing more, nothing less. As such, it changes with time.

Umm, Tyrion to believe that mixing fabrics or meat and dairy products were moral norms in themselves really misses the point of the biblical and theological approach. Not mixing meat and dairy products is indeed a Levitical law but that doesn’t make it a moral law. In fact, mixing meat and dairy products is not immoral in itself. What made it immoral for the Israelites was that God commanded against doing it, so to do it would be violate God’s command, which is immoral. The actual law is morally neutral in this regard but it has a theological purpose, namely, to differentiate the “people of God” from their neighbours, to set them apart and focus them on their unique identity and mission. Actually, many of the Levitical laws are like this.

 

[Tyrion]

Wow, good way to come down from discussing arguments, Tyrion, to attacking people.

Is that the best you could come up with? I simply pointed out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the apologists, who say that “slavery” is universally bad, except when it is endorsed by the “holy word of God”. And that is “attacking” people?

 

[billcu1]

OK what can natural law deduce or explain the manner of sexuallity of humans and dolphins? Dolphins other than humans are supposed to be the only other animals other than man that has sex for reasons other than reproduction. What can be done with this data using natural law and what can we come up with? Can we start with is this kind of behavior ok? Humans aren’t justified in this behavior are dolphins and is the behavior rational. I would say a human humping everything all the time is quite irrational.

 

[Tyrion]

OK what can natural law deduce or explain the manner of sexuallity of humans and dolphins? Dolphins other than humans are supposed to be the only other animals other than man that has sex for reasons other than reproduction. What can be done with this data using natural law and what can we come up with? Can we start with is this kind of behavior ok? Humans aren’t justified in this behavior are dolphins and is the behavior rational. I would say a human humping everything all the time is quite irrational.

You forget about the primates, among them the bonobos. They habitually engage in all sorts of sexual practices, just to have fun, or alleviate stress. They are the true examples of the “flower-child” of the sixties, who do not preach, but live the wonderful proposition: “make love, not war”. If only humans had that kind of superior ethical system, how much better this world would be.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Is that the best you could come up with? I simply pointed out the inconsistency and hypocrisy of the apologists, who say that “slavery” is universally bad, except when it is endorsed by the “holy word of God”. And that is “attacking” people?

You said this, Tyrion:

“Funny, you should say that in a disapproving manner. That is exactly and precisely what your brethren keep saying when one asks about certain passages of the bible, which endorse slavery…”

But that isn’t a response to my argument but an attack on what some Christians say as a substitute for a response. Personally, I don’t know what some Christians may claim about such passages. I suspect that what is claimed is that God permits certain evils to achieve a greater good.

I would rather stick to arguments rather than “he said, she said” about other people.

 

[fhansen]

You forget about the primates, among them the bonobos. They habitually engage in all sorts of sexual practices, just to have fun, or alleviate stress. They are the true examples of the “flower-child” of the sixties, who do not preach, but live the wonderful proposition: “make love, not war”. If only humans had that kind of superior ethical system, how much better this world would be.

Yeah, it’d be great, man. A host of unwanted children-dead or alive depending on what the superior free spirits decide their fate will be-and then an even greater proliferation of aids and other such STDs. Gotta be free to ‘do yer thing’, tho.

 

[billcu1]

You forget about the primates, among them the bonobos. They habitually engage in all sorts of sexual practices, just to have fun, or alleviate stress. They are the true examples of the “flower-child” of the sixties, who do not preach, but live the wonderful proposition: “make love, not war”. If only humans had that kind of superior ethical system, how much better this world would be.

I guess I did. Chimps I know are violent sometimes. Murders too when they pick on one of their own; I don’t know about Bonobos. That’s interesting info and I’m not saying God wants us to act like that. I was just looking for natural law in this case. We have a connection with them though proved genetically. What does natural law teach about our sexual practices (without God) and theirs? Obviously we have the higher guidance But I guess they avoid simian STDs to a large point.

 

[SonCatcher]

You forget about the primates, among them the bonobos. They habitually engage in all sorts of sexual practices, just to have fun, or alleviate stress. They are the true examples of the “flower-child” of the sixties, who do not preach, but live the wonderful proposition: “make love, not war”. If only humans had that kind of superior ethical system, how much better this world would be.

That is in no way a “superior” ethical system. It merely exchanges one vice for another.

The “flower children” of the sixties ultimately suffered numerous emotional and physical problems due to their “free love” practices.

 

[Tyrion]

That is in no way a “superior” ethical system. It merely exchanges one vice for another.

What is a “vice” is again a subjective view. In my opinion (!) to be grounded in mutual love and caring is vastly superior to the confrontational, war-mongering attitude. Their slogan: “make love, not war” is admirable. But, of course your mileage may vary.

The “flower children” of the sixties ultimately suffered numerous emotional and physical problems due to their “free love” practices.

Yes, they did, because they went to the extreme in their practice. It was a rebellion against the hypocritical and tyrannical establishment of the times. But, just like drinking wine in moderation is healthy and beneficial; drinking in excess is harmful and may lead to alcoholism. Do not confuse the “practice” with the “practice done in excess”. Anything and everything “overdone” is harmful, but that is not a good ground to criticize the practice itself.

Of course it was just an example, and examples are never perfect. There is no sign that the bonobos “overdo” their practice.

 

[SonCatcher]

What is a “vice” is again a subjective view. In my opinion (!) to be grounded in mutual love and caring is vastly superior to the confrontational, war-mongering attitude. Their slogan: “make love, not war” is admirable. But, of course your mileage may vary.

Yes, they did, because they went to the extreme in their practice. It was a rebellion against the hypocritical and tyrannical establishment of the times. But, just like drinking wine in moderation is healthy and beneficial; drinking in excess is harmful and may lead to alcoholism. Do not confuse the “practice” with the “practice done in excess”. Anything and everything “overdone” is harmful, but that is not a good ground to criticize the practice itself.

Of course it was just an example, and examples are never perfect. There is no sign that the bonobos “overdo” their practice.

What appears in your subjective view as “grounded in mutual love and caring” appears to Catholic sensibilities as self-serving: using others for one’s own pleasure. In the case of bonobos, they also pleasure themselves in part in attempt to avoid the pain of death. They, however, cannot escape death. When it comes, any human who follows their model would be utterly unprepared.

Some practices are harmful even in moderation. Ethics must recognize that.

 

[Tyrion]

What appears in your subjective view as “grounded in mutual love and caring” appears to Catholic sensibilities as self-serving: using others for one’s own pleasure.

If two people mutually agree to embark on a certain way of life, how can one of them “use” the other one? They are both aware of the actions, and they are both willing to participate. To call that “using one” simply makes no sense.

Let’s consider: two people take turns to express their love toward the other one. Each one takes the role of the “active” one, while the other is the passive one. Then they change the “roles”. I understand that you may have problem with this scenario, but under no circumstances can you accuse them of “taking advantage of the other one”, or “using the other one”.

Some practices are harmful even in moderation. Ethics must recognize that.

No doubt. To shoot someone even once in the stomach would be definitely harmful. But here we talk about something completely different, don’t we?

 

[SonCatcher]

If two people mutually agree to embark on a certain way of life, how can one of them “use” the other one? They are both aware of the actions, and they are both willing to participate. To call that “using one” simply makes no sense.

Let’s consider: two people take turns to express their love toward the other one. Each one takes the role of the “active” one, while the other is the passive one. Then they change the “roles”. I understand that you may have problem with this scenario, but under no circumstances can you accuse them of “taking advantage of the other one”, or “using the other one”.

The difference is that love called “charity”. It is a total giving of one’s self to the other, not taking in return. Merely agreeing does not make charity.

What you propose is how “sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.” (Luke 6:34) It is use, even when mutually agreed. Consider how the lender feels if repayment is delayed. It is the same as your “passive” one who is denied a turn at “activity.”

God’s call, however, is to “lend expecting nothing back.” (Luke 6:35) This is a call for all His children, not merely those who go by the name “Christian.”

 

[Tyrion]

The difference is that love called “charity”. It is a total giving of one’s self to the other, not taking in return. Merely agreeing does not make charity.

What you propose is how “sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.” (Luke 6:34) It is use, even when mutually agreed. Consider how the lender feels if repayment is delayed. It is the same as your “passive” one who is denied a turn at “activity.”

God’s call, however, is to “lend expecting nothing back.” (Luke 6:35) This is a call for all His children, not merely those who go by the name “Christian.”

Bringing in new words, like “charity” does not help. Even a delay does not make someone being “used”. As a matter of fact to accept the delay is an even higher level of love, since it concentrates on the other person, thereby “loving selflessly”. What is so important about simultaneous orgasm? When it happens, it is nice, but most of the time it does not. And it does not subtract anything from the love.

That phrase of “total giving of one’s self” is ridiculous. Are you supposed to chop off your little finger (Yakuza custom for offering atonement) and “give” it to other one? You cannot “give” yourself, in any meaningful sense of the word “give”. You can give love and caring.