Natural moral law?

[Peter_Plato]

Since science is about what “IS”, while ethics is about what “OUGHT TO BE”, you post was void of rational content as such it does not deserve any consideration.

You MUST realize that to engage in any scientific inquiry, to begin with, a scientist must have first addressed the question of whether s/he OUGHT to spend time, energy and resources doing so. After that s/he also had to confront the issue of what specific branch of science they OUGHT to devote their time and energy to and what specific questions OUGHT to be addressed by their research. There is absolutely no avoiding qualitative questions in science or in any other pursuit.

What is the basis upon which OUGHT questions are to be answered except by reason, then?

Even the question of whether you will spend any more time debating this topic is an OUGHT question. Do you propose to answer it in a manner “void of rational content” as you claim all OUGHT questions OUGHT to be? In which case you are being irrational in your decision to do so, again providing sufficient evidence that engaging in this irrational dialogue with you would simply be an irrational endeavour that others OUGHT not waste their time on.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tyrion

**Do you really think that the cavemen were aware or the God of christianity, who has not been suggested for tens or hundreds of thousands of years? There were zillions of gods invented by people during the millenia. People were attempting to figure out the “why”-s of nature, and the simplest “explanation” was some “god”, who had to be appeased. Every religion is based upon this simple though incorrect concept. **

As you say, there were zillions of gods that filled the vacuum of the one true God. This in itself shows a profound universal need to connect with God, even when God could not be known as directly as he was known in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

**The concept of the golden rule is an excellent starting point. However it would never lead to those complex and usually ridiculous ethical sytems which were developed later on. And the conclusion is that the ethical systems are dependent upon the society, its prevailing customs, in other words, they are not universal. **

The natural law planted by God in the hearts of all is simply this: Do good and avoid evil. If you think that is not a law that all men understand, and have always understood, even when they disobeyed it, the burden of proof is on you to say that it is not a natural law.

Each society has to amplify and tailor this law to its own specific needs. The Ten Commandments suited the Jews. That does not mean it should not have suited other peoples everywhere. Even when “Do unto others” was not practiced by savages, it was surely known in their hearts that it was a good idea, otherwise contract law would never have developed as a way to settle issues of primitive aggression and theft. Later moral laws were advanced as later matters of dispute arose. Laws that you might consider ridiculous do not prove that moral laws are not universally valid. But that is the history of the world , those who accept laws that are needed and those who deny the laws were ever needed. There are those who love moral order and those who love moral anarchy.

I suspect you may incline toward the latter.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, I read your post, and there was NOT ONE WORD about the explicit questions I asked. If you cannot answer them, why don’t you admit it?

Besides, that “law” is supposed to be “natural” and not “supernatural”, so no revelation would be needed. The assumption is that one can look at the physical reality, employ reason and logic and arrive at the conclution that certain behavior is “immoral” under ANY and ALL circumstances. Obviously there is no such thing, and your “silence” about it is an excellent evidence for that.

There are only a few examples which are usually mentioned, like “murder” and “theft” as being prohibited “universally”. No one ever cares to argue for the prohibition of certain sexual behaviors, or public nudity, or for a specific type of “marriage”. With good reason, since there are no arguments to support those views. There are no arguments to support that “murder” is universally disallowed in EVERY society. A miniscule amount of historical knowledge will bring up numerous examples where “murder” was not just not forbidden, but it was a way of life for certain parts of the pupulation. Review medival Japan, where the bushido (the samurai code of behavior) revolved around the proper time of death, either in battle, or by seppuku, and they slaughtered everyone who did not bow down to them.

To say that “sin” clouds our reason, and that is why the “revelation” was necessary is just a cop-out. If that “moral law” is “natural” and can be discerned by reason alone (the ancient Greek philosophers came up with it, without any “revelation”) or not. Looking at history one can see that there is no “moral system” which would have been accepted across ALL societies and ALL times.

What Bookcat is trying to tell you is that it is impossible to list every " law " that would fall under the Natural Moral Law - even if one were in the state of Grace and believed in the ultimate interpreter of the Natual Law - The Catholic Church. This is because the final interpretation of the Law depends on how well one is able to apply reason to each case under the guidance of the Church.

Bookcat has given you the basics which is all man in his purely natural state has. It is also what I gave you. We are given a few basic principles and must use our intelligence to arrive at the rest. Fortunately the Church has given and continues to give authoritative guidance to us.

We don’t expect you to accept it. We know you won’t. Stamp your feet all you want, its an honest answer. We do not have to prove it to you or anyone else. If you don’t like it, go away. :tsktsk::tsktsk::tsktsk:

 

[down_under]

Since science is about what “IS”, while ethics is about what “OUGHT TO BE”, you post was void of rational content as such it does not deserve any consideration.

Gotta love these demands for evidence. Well, the authority is impeccable. There is this gypsy woman with her crystal ball… which shows the past with incredible clarity…

I am having considerable difficulty having a logical conversation with a person who has no respect for logic. He makes no claim whatsoever that what he says is backed by any evidence at all. does he not know that anything that can be arbitrarily asserted can be arbitrarily denied.

And does he not understand the syllogism. he does not seem to make a major premise from which to draw a minor premise. His minor premise is bizarre to give it its best light, and his conclusion is not derivable from his minor premise.

this man hates logic by all appearances. perhaps I am mistaken

 

[DanAl]

Many people insist that there is a “natural moral law” inscribed on the human heart. Apart from the fact that this is just a poetic utterance, I wonder just what are the paragraphs of those alleged laws? Do they include the ten commandments? Or that fornication is “evil”?

I would appreciate if you would simply enumerate those “laws”, even if not in any specific order. How many are there?

If I did not know the exact number, what of it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Well, I read your post, and there was NOT ONE WORD about the explicit questions I asked. If you cannot answer them, why don’t you admit it?

Besides, that “law” is supposed to be “natural” and not “supernatural”, so no revelation would be needed. The assumption is that one can look at the physical reality, employ reason and logic and arrive at the conclution that certain behavior is “immoral” under ANY and ALL circumstances. Obviously there is no such thing, and your “silence” about it is an excellent evidence for that.

There are only a few examples which are usually mentioned, like “murder” and “theft” as being prohibited “universally”. No one ever cares to argue for the prohibition of certain sexual behaviors, or public nudity, or for a specific type of “marriage”. With good reason, since there are no arguments to support those views. There are no arguments to support that “murder” is universally disallowed in EVERY society. A miniscule amount of historical knowledge will bring up numerous examples where “murder” was not just not forbidden, but it was a way of life for certain parts of the pupulation. Review medival Japan, where the bushido (the samurai code of behavior) revolved around the proper time of death, either in battle, or by seppuku, and they slaughtered everyone who did not bow down to them.

To say that “sin” clouds our reason, and that is why the “revelation” was necessary is just a cop-out. If that “moral law” is “natural” and can be discerned by reason alone (the ancient Greek philosophers came up with it, without any “revelation”) or not. Looking at history one can see that there is no “moral system” which would have been accepted across ALL societies and ALL times.

You believe that directly intended killing of the innocent is a solid basis for creating a long lasting, happy and flourishing society?