What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[Pallas_Athene]

'Cause I don’t see any. As a matter of fact I see plenty of evidence that there is NO universal, objective moral law.

If there would be, it would be evident in young children, who have not yet been influenced (corrupted or polluted?) by the society around them. However, generally children are not kind or helpful toward others. They are little brutes, filled with envy; they jealously protecting “their” toys, and happily take other children’s toys if they can. They have no qualms about lying or torturing other children or animals. Their parents must invest a lot of time and energy to change them into civilized beings. They have absolutely no inhibition against playing with their “private parts”. Little boys cannot achieve orgasm, but little girls can and they do, frequently. They do not think that it is something they should not do. So there is no “natural”, built-in barrier even for something as innocent as masturbation, much less greed, envy or even murder.

We can also observe simple (which is not primitive), isolated tribes. Their moral code does not have a prohibition against public nudity, or publicly performed sex. Some of them do not know the concept of the so-called “traditional” marriage. This “natural moral law” simply does not “seem” to exist. Do you have evidence that it does?

 

[Cider]

From the CCC

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

 

[fhansen]

'Cause I don’t see any. As a matter of fact I see plenty of evidence that there is NO universal, objective moral law.

If there would be, it would be evident in young children, who have not yet been influenced (corrupted or polluted?) by the society around them. However, generally children are not kind or helpful toward others. They are little brutes, filled with envy; they jealously protecting “their” toys, and happily take other children’s toys if they can. They have no qualms about lying or torturing other children or animals. Their parents must invest a lot of time and energy to change them into civilized beings. They have absolutely no inhibition against playing with their “private parts”. Little boys cannot achieve orgasm, but little girls can and they do, frequently. They do not think that it is something they should not do. So there is no “natural”, built-in barrier even for something as innocent as masturbation, much less greed, envy or even murder.

We can also observe simple (which is not primitive), isolated tribes. Their moral code does not have a prohibition against public nudity, or publicly performed sex. Some of them do not know the concept of the so-called “traditional” marriage. This “natural moral law” simply does not “seem” to exist. Do you have evidence that it does?

We can speculate to the contrary but I’d submit that most people have a built in revulsion for incest, torture, killing, rape, lying, harming others in general, etc. and yet there are plenty of selfish reasons why a person might want to participate in any of these things. So there appears to be a conflict, pointing to the opposite of what you claim: man is meant for peace and harmony and humility but pride and a self-serving mentality also hold sway. Whereas animals appear to follow a law which maintains consistency within any particular species in terms of behavior, humankind is all over the board, giving credence to the scriptural notion that ‘each does what is right in their own eyes’, meaning any and every kind of moral or amoral behavior may manifest itself even while there are still patterns which hold true for the majority. And only man may actually do harm even to himself, another paradox, another way in which man reveals a division within his very self, another case of man behaving in ways that oppose basic reason. In much of his behavior man seems to be outside of the natural order.

 

[Micosil]

'Cause I don’t see any. As a matter of fact I see plenty of evidence that there is NO universal, objective moral law.

If there would be, it would be evident in young children, who have not yet been influenced (corrupted or polluted?) by the society around them. However, generally children are not kind or helpful toward others. They are little brutes, filled with envy; they jealously protecting “their” toys, and happily take other children’s toys if they can. They have no qualms about lying or torturing other children or animals. Their parents must invest a lot of time and energy to change them into civilized beings. They have absolutely no inhibition against playing with their “private parts”. Little boys cannot achieve orgasm, but little girls can and they do, frequently. They do not think that it is something they should not do. So there is no “natural”, built-in barrier even for something as innocent as masturbation, much less greed, envy or even murder.

We can also observe simple (which is not primitive), isolated tribes. Their moral code does not have a prohibition against public nudity, or publicly performed sex. Some of them do not know the concept of the so-called “traditional” marriage. This “natural moral law” simply does not “seem” to exist. Do you have evidence that it does?

It’s interesting you asked this; just yesterday I was browsing YouTube and came across this video, with the president of American Atheists, David Silverman.

Notice what he says near the end – yep, you heard him right. Now, I am sure most atheists may not have such an extreme, clinical view as that of Mr. Silverman, but the fact is, Silverman does take his presupposed fact of there being no objective moral standard or law to its logical conclusion. And as you can see, it sounds wrong. Dead wrong.

As for your children example; I recommend C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – even though kids can be brutes, bullies and downright mean when dealing with each other, even they appeal to each other frequently; “Hey, that’s not fair!” “Hey, give that back, that’s mine!” “You cheated, I won!”

 

[thinkandmull]

In college we talked about innate ideas in children. However, I think when I child says “why does Johnny get to go and not me”, its more of a psychological thing were they put themselves in Johnny’s place, like what he gets, then realizes they don’t have it and says “why am I not happy”. Is the desire to be happy, then, innate? Sure is

 

[Tomdstone]

'Cause I don’t see any. As a matter of fact I see plenty of evidence that there is NO universal, objective moral law.

What does the natural moral law say about same sex marriage? Why do so many people in Ireland and elsewhere differ from the traditional view?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We can speculate to the contrary but I’d submit that most people have a built in revulsion for incest, torture, killing, rape, lying, harming others in general, etc. and yet there are plenty of selfish reasons why a person might want to participate in any of these things.

The question is this: “are we repulsed by these actions because we were raised to be repulsed by them, or is there an inborn ‘natural’ revulsion?”. The fact that most children are little brutes, who have to be taught (trained, indoctrinated, brainwashed) day in and day out how to behave is a very strong evidence that we all live according to the standards we acquired in our formative years, when we “swallow” indiscriminately whatever we are told.

It’s interesting you asked this; just yesterday I was browsing YouTube and came across this video, with the president of American Atheists, David Silverman.

Notice what he says near the end – yep, you heard him right. Now, I am sure most atheists may not have such an extreme, clinical view as that of Mr. Silverman, but the fact is, Silverman does take his presupposed fact of there being no objective moral standard or law to its logical conclusion. And as you can see, it sounds wrong. Dead wrong.

Nope, he is right, dead right. And he sounds honest. But this is not the topic right now.

As for your children example; I recommend C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity – even though kids can be brutes, bullies and downright mean when dealing with each other, even they appeal to each other frequently; “Hey, that’s not fair!” “Hey, give that back, that’s mine!” “You cheated, I won!”

Of course I read Lewis. The problem with your objection is that you already deal with “polluted” children, who are halfway through the “indoctrination” process. Moreover, there is no evidence that children are “honest” when they accuse the other ones. Don’t most children deny that they “broke a vase”? They will say: “I did not do it, he did!” - and they lie shamelessly. Mind you, I don’t use the word “indoctrination” in a pejorative manner. Little children are “trained”, not “taught”, just like small animals. The method is the usual “reward - punishment” approach.

Is the desire to be happy, then, innate? Sure is

Certainly. But “how” to become happy is something that we need to learn. The original impulse is selfishness, and we must learn to become unselfish.

What does the natural moral law say about same sex marriage? Why do so many people in Ireland and elsewhere differ from the traditional view?

I am the wrong person to ask, since I do not accept the idea of “natural moral law”. My approach is solidly based upon the “golden rules” (the rule of reciprocity), like “live and let live” and generally, if it hurts no one, then the action is amoral.

But here comes a question to all of you: “what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter”? The answer might be perplexing : the difference comes from your assessment of the actions; if you agree with his opinion, he is a freedom fighter. If you disagree, he is a terrorist.

 

[Tomdstone]

But here comes a question to all of you: “what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter”? The answer might be perplexing : the difference comes from your assessment of the actions; if you agree with his opinion, he is a freedom fighter. If you disagree, he is a terrorist.

Very true. For President Ronald Reagan, those in al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were freedom fighters, because they were against Russia. For President Bush, they are terrorists.

 

[fhansen]

Very true. For President Ronald Reagan, those in al-Qaeda in Afghanistan were freedom fighters, because they were against Russia. For President Bush, they are terrorists.

Reagan knows better now.

 

[Elizium23]

The evidence is plain to see in the beauty of its working. When men love each other and get along in a similar way to the early Christian communities of Acts, they bear good fruit. God’s rewards to those who follow nautral law are manifold and tangible. Likewise we see the chaos and discord sown when we disobey.

The law of sexuality is clearly written into our biology, it can be reasoned by the discoveries of science about the nature of man and woman. We are designed to become “one flesh” and thereby a mother and father to a child. In the interest of not only the child but also the husband and wife, marriage was raised to the dignity of a sacrament.

There are many models, good and bad, of families in the Bible. Likewise there are many archetypes of people who obeyed and disobeyed God’s laws. Sacred Scripture is self-contained evidence and proof of God’s love and God’s laws made for us. As Catholics we have Sacred Tradition which expands and interprets this evidence. It is quite convincing and complete to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Micosil]

Nope, he is right, dead right. And he sounds honest. But this is not the topic right now.

He indeed does sound honest, and he is right in that his logic, taken to its conclusion, is sound in and of itself; it’s just that the conclusion sounds rather disturbing. If someone were to say that “the Nazis did objective good”, I can assure you, that would anger quite a few people. And I mean quite a few.

Of course I read Lewis. The problem with your objection is that you already deal with “polluted” children, who are halfway through the “indoctrination” process. Moreover, there is no evidence that children are “honest” when they accuse the other ones. Don’t most children deny that they “broke a vase”? They will say: “I did not do it, he did!” - and they lie shamelessly. Mind you, I don’t use the word “indoctrination” in a pejorative manner. Little children are “trained”, not “taught”, just like small animals. The method is the usual “reward - punishment” approach.

But why do children shift the blame on others? Even when there’s no real punishment or negative reaction involved, they sometimes still shift the blame on others – and why is that? There’s no punishment involved in those cases, so escaping punishment is not the reason. What is it then, that compels them to rid themselves of the blame?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God’s rewards to those who follow nautral law are manifold and tangible. Likewise we see the chaos and discord sown when we disobey.

Unfortunately that is not the case. The Sun shines both on the “evil” and the “righteous” alike.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

He indeed does sound honest, and he is right in that his logic, taken to its conclusion, is sound in and of itself; it’s just that the conclusion sounds rather disturbing.

I agree that it might be disturbing for those who did not think it through. In every society there is a “list” of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. This list is partially “written” or codified into the legal system. The other part enumerates the behaviors which are “frowned upon”, or carry a “social stigma”, or considered to be “in bad taste”. In a Christian theocracy cohabitation, contraceptive implements or drugs might be illegal. Would you consider such a legal system to be “moral”? There is a very good book, The Handmaid’s Tale, which explores the ramification of such a society. Pretty scary.

Let me say something even more disturbing. Every society is upheld by force. The “rulers” establish the “laws”, and they employ the police and the military to suppress dissent which might challenge their position. Some societies are more lenient, others are less so. In the US you can criticize the status quo, but if you pass a certain line, you will become an enemy of the state, and the authorities will take away your “life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness”. That line is totally arbitrary. You do not have to hurt others, you even may be helpful to others, but if you violate an arbitrary law, you become a criminal, and dealt with accordingly. Yes, very disturbing, but this is reality.

If someone were to say that “the Nazis did objective good”, I can assure you, that would anger quite a few people. And I mean quite a few.

Obviously. Because we have been brought up differently. Now, without any intent to hurt anyone’s feelings, how is it that it is always the Nazi’s atrocitites are dragged up as an example, when they acted according to the Christian tradition of blaming the Jews for being the killers of Christ and therefore they “deserved” whatever came to them? In the last two thousand years the Jews were blamed for everything, they were ostracized, placed in ghettos and persecuted - as the killers of Christ. Were those societies “moral”? (And another “tidbit”. Who invented the concentration camps? Hint… not the Nazis. )

But why do children shift the blame on others? Even when there’s no real punishment or negative reaction involved, they sometimes still shift the blame on others – and why is that? There’s no punishment involved in those cases, so escaping punishment is not the reason. What is it then, that compels them to rid themselves of the blame?

This is also a learned behavior. They have been punished before, and children are good learners.

There is an age-old question of “nature” vs. “nurture”. As it turns out we have very few “inborn” abilities, the more important one being the affinity and propensity to learn languages. Pretty much everything else is learned. It would be a cruel experiment, but if a group of children would be raised in an isolated environment, where the “good” behavior is punished, and cruelty is encouraged, the result would be a society of sociopaths. Yes, quite scary.

 

[Micosil]

I agree that it might be disturbing for those who did not think it through. In every society there is a “list” of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. This list is partially “written” or codified into the legal system. The other part enumerates the behaviors which are “frowned upon”, or carry a “social stigma”, or considered to be “in bad taste”. In a Christian theocracy cohabitation, contraceptive implements or drugs might be illegal. Would you consider such a legal system to be “moral”? There is a very good book, The Handmaid’s Tale, which explores the ramification of such a society. Pretty scary.

It depends on what you mean by “illegal”; however, you have to understand, Christian morality is something that preferably shouldn’t be forced externally by secular authorities (despite historical examples of Inquisition-era secular courts handing out sentences for heresy), but something each of us personally struggle with. I may check that book out, but I do wonder if the book addresses what actually happens in society in such situations, rather than what the author thinks happens.

Let me say something even more disturbing. Every society is upheld by force. The “rulers” establish the “laws”, and they employ the police and the military to suppress dissent which might challenge their position. Some societies are more lenient, others are less so. In the US you can criticize the status quo, but if you pass a certain line, you will become an enemy of the state, and the authorities will take away your “life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness”. That line is totally arbitrary. You do not have to hurt others, you even may be helpful to others, but if you violate an arbitrary law, you become a criminal, and dealt with accordingly. Yes, very disturbing, but this is reality.

I can’t speak for the US nor its laws, because I haven’t really lived there, but I do agree that modern societies have laws that are unjust or sometimes truly random; but that’s a topic for another thread. Regardless, despite these unjust laws, you have to understand that most modern societies don’t systematically commit genocide…

Obviously. Because we have been brought up differently. Now, without any intent to hurt anyone’s feelings, how is it that it is always the Nazi’s atrocitites are dragged up as an example, when they acted according to the Christian tradition of blaming the Jews for being the killers of Christ and therefore they “deserved” whatever came to them? In the last two thousand years the Jews were blamed for everything, they were ostracized, placed in ghettos and persecuted - as the killers of Christ. Were those societies “moral”? (And another “tidbit”. Who invented the concentration camps? Hint… not the Nazis. )

While it is true that there’s been a sentiment of anti-Semitism from Christians, two things:

1. To blame the Jews for Christ’s murder is like blaming Abraham Lincon’s assassination on Americans; Christ Himself was a Jew, as was pretty much everyone he was close to: the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, pretty much all of the Apostles (it’s not clear if Luke was a Jew or a Gentile, but not the point)
2. To blame Jews for Jesus’s murder is taking away from His whole mission; the specific Jews that were involved in apprehending Him and having Pilate forcibly condemn him were instruments and necessary, so to speak

This is also a learned behavior. They have been punished before, and children are good learners.

There is an age-old question of “nature” vs. “nurture”. As it turns out we have very few “inborn” abilities, the more important one being the affinity and propensity to learn languages. Pretty much everything else is learned. It would be a cruel experiment, but if a group of children would be raised in an isolated environment, where the “good” behavior is punished, and cruelty is encouraged, the result would be a society of sociopaths. Yes, quite scary.

I’m still not convinced; even if children are raised among animals, is it still true that they’ll have no moral compass or barometer? Feral children such as these may exhibit a lack of social standards we take for granted, such as eye contact, human language, toilet training, etc. – but is is true that they also lack morals? If you were to hit them, they would probably hit you back in self defense; if you gave them a candy bar, that would be the first step in building a trust relationship.

 

[Tomdstone]

It

1. To blame the Jews for Christ’s murder is like blaming Abraham Lincon’s assassination on Americans; Christ Himself was a Jew, as was pretty much everyone he was close to: the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, pretty much all of the Apostles (it’s not clear if Luke was a Jew or a Gentile, but not the point)
2. To blame Jews for Jesus’s murder is taking away from His whole mission; the specific Jews that were involved in apprehending Him and having Pilate forcibly condemn him were instruments and necessary, so to speak

What is your interpretation of Matthew 27:25 ?

 

[Tomdstone]

Reagan knows better now.

It doesn’t count now.

 

[Peter_Plato]

'Cause I don’t see any. As a matter of fact I see plenty of evidence that there is NO universal, objective moral law.

If there would be, it would be evident in young children, who have not yet been influenced (corrupted or polluted?) by the society around them. However, generally children are not kind or helpful toward others. They are little brutes, filled with envy; they jealously protecting “their” toys, and happily take other children’s toys if they can. They have no qualms about lying or torturing other children or animals. Their parents must invest a lot of time and energy to change them into civilized beings. They have absolutely no inhibition against playing with their “private parts”. Little boys cannot achieve orgasm, but little girls can and they do, frequently. They do not think that it is something they should not do. So there is no “natural”, built-in barrier even for something as innocent as masturbation, much less greed, envy or even murder.

We can also observe simple (which is not primitive), isolated tribes. Their moral code does not have a prohibition against public nudity, or publicly performed sex. Some of them do not know the concept of the so-called “traditional” marriage. This “natural moral law” simply does not “seem” to exist. Do you have evidence that it does?

The above appears to suffer from a complete misunderstanding of what the grounds for natural moral law theory actually are.

Perhaps the following two articles by R.J. Snell from The Public Discourse will help.

thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/9227/
thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/02/9233/

Granted, there is a distinction to be made between the “new” natural law theorists and the “old” theorists, (for an explanation of the distinction between them see Feser’s post Christian Hart, Humean Head) but your request for “evidence” just seems to miss completely the grounds upon which natural law is moored - human rationality and the first person moral perspective that is integral to what makes human beings moral agents.

From Snell’s first article above…

Principles of practical reason are not derived from factual claims about nature or metaphysics, not only because Hume was correct on that point, but because first principles are not derived from anything—they are entirely underived. Neither are they innate, although they are self-evident; grasping them entails “no process of inference” but rather an “act of non-inferential understanding.”

Such understanding is hardly supernatural, for it is the ordinary act of insight whereby we grasp what is intelligible. For Finnis, we begin with the data of our own inclinations and purposes for acting; some goods, we realize, are insufficient reasons for acting and thus merely instrumental—we do not brush our teeth as an ultimate good but as conducive to health, and do not seek money for itself but for what it allows—while other goods require no further explanation. I can intelligibly ask “why do you want the promotion?” in a way I cannot ask “why do you want to be happy?” The answer to both those questions might be “to be happy, of course,” indicating that happiness is ultimate in a way the promotion is not. But I’ve not inferred anything from nature in doing so; I’ve just recognized what it is that makes my action purposive.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Peter Plato:

The above appears to suffer from a complete misunderstanding of what the grounds for natural moral law theory actually are.

Really? The catechism says:
Catechism 1954:

Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:

The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.

Based upon this, the small children who are as of yet “unpolluted” would instinctively avoid “sins”. But of course they do not. They cheat, lie, are envious, and even commit the “sin of sins” stimulate their little private parts to achieve some temporary pleasure.

 

[Cider]

Really? The catechism says:

Based upon this, the small children who are as of yet “unpolluted” would instinctively avoid “sins”. But of course they do not. They cheat, lie, are envious, and even commit the “sin of sins” stimulate their little private parts to achieve some temporary pleasure.

Yes, because all are born into a world that is affected by original sin.

CCC

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. the human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.14

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Yes, because all are born into a world that is affected by original sin.

In that case what did the baptism accomplish? But even if you are correct, it still means that humans (even very young children) have no inborn, instinctive moral compass to tell right from wrong - in other words there is no “natural moral law”.