There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[LittleSoldier]

No big deal:shrug:

Weird. Apologize and get a shrug/roll-eyes in return. That’ll teach me to apologize.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Weird. Apologize and get a shrug/roll-eyes in return. That’ll teach me to apologize.

No, I was saying that I was not offended, and there would be no reason for me to be.

 

[levinas12]

You know how I know this? Because you can call it a “pile of plutonium” – meaning you have a clear and definitive sense of what plutonium is, and hence can recognize pluralities of it …

And yet there is a basis for distinguishing between man and cow, no? Or do you deny this? …

If there is in fact nothing that is essential to our classification of “man” and “cow” then we would not in fact be able to have this conversation, since there would be confusion about what I mean when I say “man” or “cow.” Yet clearly you know what I mean when I say “man,” and you know what I mean when I say “cow.” …

You obviously have had graduate courses in philosophy.

Your point about being able to have “this conversation” (which I bolded) is a very nice one indeed. Very Socratic!

Maybe you should start another thread, e.g., “what makes everyday talk possible”.

 

[Kismetji]

Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate. Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects.

Interesting that now even psychology is no longer this naive.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, I was saying that I was not offended, and there would be no reason for me to be.

Oh. OK. Sorry again. Sometimes I really hate trying to communicate via computers.

 

[levinas12]

But if we drop natural law, do we also drop the question about where the basic sense of moral obligation comes from? Sociology, evolutionary biology, psychoanalysis, etc have tried to reductively explain it. Have they succeeded?

If not, we are left with a puzzle that is analogous to other puzzles, e.g., where does the “must” in logic, mathematics, the hard sciences come from.

Additionally, the moral “must” (prescinding from specific contents) seems to be a universal experience.

 

[JDaniel]

The euphemism “the natural law, which is inscribed unto every human heart” is sheer nonsense.

Spock:

I have passed by this thread a few dozen times, stopped and looked at the title, but didn’t want to get into the discussion as I knew there was no quick and easy answer to your current question and all that might ensue. But, by the way you were explaining it, I could tell that it was No True Natural Law! What I’d like to do is to jump into this, not by reading all of the posts before me, but by starting out here, talking about what the natural law is not, from my perspective and from the perspective of Catholic authority. Assuming that it is OK, I will begin (and, anyone who suspects that I am wrong, please let me know):

The Natural Law:

(a) is not something that’s inscribed on the brain prior birth. That is a euphemism that simply stipulates that all beings have a natural set of activities and behaviors that suit it for life and encountering the world. Further, it stipulates that it is not merely a wish, or a hint, or a counsel, or a suggestion; it is not that trivial to beings: including inanimate, plant and animal beings. If a thing has a behavior, or manner of conducting itself, or a regularity, it is easily understood that all like beings function normally in an extraordinarily similar manner. IOW, dogs act like dogs, cat’s act like cats, trees like trees, and radioactive isotopes like radioactive isotopes.
(b) does not say that creatures are born with a natural set of “do’s” and “don’ts,” but neither are they born with an innate proclivity to behave like something they are not, nor something that is not in their best interest (and not primarily for selfish reasons). So, the natural law can be seen as a natural proclivity, or better yet, tendency.
(c) does not format brains.
(d) does not stand in the way of normal learning.
(e) is not a ‘physical’ law.
(f) is not restricted to mankind (moral beings) only.
(g) is not unnoticed by scientists.
(h) does not stop aberrations, such as mental illness or injury, from altering behavior.
(i) does not mean that everyone will get a full measure of it.
(j) does not conflict with the tabula rasa idea.

What it implies is that humans are born with a “natural set of do’s and don’t’s”, or a “natural moral guide”. Of course biology has proven that humans are born “tabula rasa”, a clean slate.

Which is completely congruent with the Church’s teachings. From Wikipedia:
“In the 11th century, the theory of tabula rasa was developed more clearly by the Islamic philosopher, Ibn Sina (known as “Avicenna” in the Western world). He argued that the “human intellect at birth is rather like a tabula rasa, a pure potentiality that is actualized through education and comes to know” and that knowledge is attained through “empirical familiarity with objects in this world from which one abstracts universal concepts” which is developed through a “syllogistic method of reasoning; observations lead to prepositional statements, which when compounded lead to further abstract concepts.” He further argued that the intellect itself “possesses levels of development from the material intellect (al-‘aql al-hayulani), that potentiality can acquire knowledge to the active intellect (al-‘aql al-fa‘il), the state of the human intellect at conjunction with the perfect source of knowledge.”

In the 12th century, the Andalusian-Islamic philosopher and novelist Ibn Tufail (known as “Abubacer” or “Ebn Tophail” in the West) demonstrated the theory of tabula rasa as a thought experiment through his Arabic philosophical novel, Hayy ibn Yaqzan, in which he depicted the development of the mind of a feral child “from a tabula rasa to that of an adult, in complete isolation from society” on a desert island, through experience alone. The Latin translation of his philosophical novel, entitled Philosophus Autodidactus, published by Edward Pococke the Younger in 1671, had an influence on John Locke’s formulation of tabula rasa in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

In the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas brought the Aristotelian and Avicennian notions to the forefront of Christian thought. These notions sharply contrasted with the previously held Platonic notions of the human mind as an entity that preexisted somewhere in the heavens, before being sent down to join a body here on Earth (see Plato’s Phaedo and Apology, as well as others). St. Bonaventure (also 13th century) was one of Aquinas’ fiercest intellectual opponents, offering some of the strongest arguments towards the Platonic idea of the mind.”

continued…

 

[JDaniel]

continuation…

Our brain is not “preformatted” like the neural system of insects. It is our greatest strength that we are able to learn. We do have an affinity to learn languages, and via the languages we learn everything else.

But, this can’t be wholly true for then a feral child could not learn anything.

There are a couple of dozen of “feral children”. These poor beings grew up in a wild environment, without human companionship. As such, during their formative years they were not exposed to languages, and so they never learned to communicate. They are unable to learn to speak. They are essentially wild animals in a human form.

I find these stories rather had to swallow. I am a biologist, for all intents and purposes, as that’s what I majored in and taught. I can think of no animals that would care for a feral child in such a way that it would live very long. It would quickly become food for wolves. It would be left in the dust for ants to eat because it could not keep up with any apes. It would become almost instantaneous food for the big cats. No reptile would have anything to do with one – except to eat it. A so-called feral child simply would not have the strength to co-exist with any animals, with the possible exception of the earthworms. I think that they are entertaining fiction.

So to keep talking about some “pre-wired” morality (which these children clearly lack) is a biological absurdity. Our moral norms are a learned behavior. It is one thing to keep on believing all sorts of “angels” and “demons” - after all these alleged beings cannot be detected, and as such cannot be proven or disproven.

To a significant extent, I think that is so. However, we are left with the problem of how we ultimately made it here then. Prior to a knowledge of language, or even any knowable knowledge, for that matter, an early man’s focus was probably not on social procedures. More than likely, his focus was on surviving, which to some extent may have included a need for a larger population. But, the earliest men would not necessarily have had that luxury.

It is a completely different ballgame to believe what has been shown to be false - like this ridiculous concept of “natural law - inscribed unto the human heart”.

Again, that is simply a way of describing that nature has caused things to act in ways that are not alien to them.

To keep on believing nonsense like this marks the believer as a fully irrational person. It is a sad thing that so many of the posters around here keep on believing these and other assorted nonsense, and when they are told about their error, they simply close their ears.

Well, it might not show them to be “completely irrational.”

What does the Natural Law mean and how can we be sure that it has the force of law and not merely the force of a “suggestion,” or “wish?”

First of all, it must be a law because anything less simply will not do. If it is not “law” then there would be no need for the regularities in the behaviors of creatures. If it is not “law” there would be insufficient motive when faced with difficulties. If it was not “law” it would work when it wasn’t needed. And indeed, it must be a moral law as physical laws are only suitable to non-rational beings. For non-rational beings, we witness indetermination and an adherence to natures that are devoid of civility. The non-rational being is compelled only by outside forces and without the filter of a Free Will. Animals don’t choose one over another; they respond to the itchings of their bodies. When a big cat is hungry, it kills and eats meat. They have no “moral” compunction to choose the lesser “evil’ and go vegan.

It must be a natural law because every creature tends toward its end by its activity guided by nature. A being’s nature is nothing else but its essence considered as the principle of its activity. So, why should man be different? There must be that in him which guides a man to his end through his own nature. Even in his most primitive state, man could easily have ignored this inner motivation and seriously compromised his prospects for survival and prosperity. This is all that Natural Law means. It is akin to but much greater than mere “instinct.” It is more like “instinct with free will.”

Now although I have been speaking primarily of human beings, it is no different with animal, vegetable and inanimate nature. It applies to these levels somewhat differently but they are not excluded from it. Man is the only creature with free will. He can intellectually know what is good for him and willfully choose to follow it:

“By examining the kind of being he is, his nature, he can can find the kind of conduct suitable to him and can see how this alone can lead him to what is good for him. He sees that modes of conduct that are inhuman or antisocial, abusive to himself or his fellows, while conferring a temporary advantage, must be destructive of himself and of his race in the long run. He also sees that he cannot renounce his rational nature and the responsibility bound up with it. Come what may, he must maintain his human dignity or become intolerable to himself. He must demand that others treat him as a man, even when they refuse to, and he must deserve his own and their respect by behaving as a man.” – Right and Reason, Austin Fagothey, S.J., pp. 129 – 129.

more (later) . . .

 

[Kismetji]

“By examining the kind of being he is, his nature, he can can find the kind of conduct suitable to him and can see how this alone can lead him to what is good for him. He sees that modes of conduct that are inhuman or antisocial, abusive to himself or his fellows, while conferring a temporary advantage, must be destructive of himself and of his race in the long run. He also sees that he cannot renounce his rational nature and the responsibility bound up with it. Come what may, he must maintain his human dignity or become intolerable to himself. He must demand that others treat him as a man, even when they refuse to, and he must deserve his own and their respect by behaving as a man.” – Right and Reason, Austin Fagothey, S.J., pp. 129 – 129.

more (later) . . .

For once, I am in complete agreement here.