What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[davidv]

In that case what did the baptism accomplish?

Restoration of sanctifying grace.

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”.

Really? At this point this is an unsupported assertion. Where is the logical argument to support it?

 

[Cider]

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”.

CCC

VII. The Grace of Baptism

1262 The different effects of Baptism are signified by the perceptible elements of the sacramental rite. Immersion in water symbolizes not only death and purification, but also regeneration and renewal. Thus the two principal effects are purification from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.64

For the forgiveness of sins . . .

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.65 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."66 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."67

“A new creature”

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"68 member of Christ and coheir with him,69 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.70

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

Incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."71 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."72

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."73 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."74 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.75 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,76 holding them in respect and affection.77 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.78

1270 “Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.79

The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."80 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."81

An indelible spiritual mark . . .

1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.82 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

1273 Incorporated into the Church by Baptism, the faithful have received the sacramental character that consecrates them for Christian religious worship.83 The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.84

1274 The Holy Spirit has marked us with the seal of the Lord (“Dominicus character”) "for the day of redemption."85 "Baptism indeed is the seal of eternal life."86 The faithful Christian who has “kept the seal” until the end, remaining faithful to the demands of his Baptism, will be able to depart this life "marked with the sign of faith,"87 with his baptismal faith, in expectation of the blessed vision of God - the consummation of faith - and in the hope of resurrection.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Based upon what you posted, the CCC 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.

Note, that the CCC says “each and every MAN,” the presumption being that the natural law is engraved (as a totality) in the soul of fully ADULT human beings, because only when “human reason” as a fully functioning capacity is “ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin” is the natural law having its effect. Ergo, your pointing at human children acting contrary to the natural law as “evidence” against natural law isn’t even relevant to your case.

Recall that natural law theory (both the old and new flavours) assert that moral agency requires both a reflective intellect and a responsible will to be legitimately moral. This would mean children below the age of reason could not act as moral agents. In other words, your categorizing the behaviour of children as immoral (“sin of sins,” “envious” and ”sinful") isn’t at all germane to your case.

The fact that young children act out of self-interest, protective of their stake in the world or out of indescriminate desire for goods or pleasures, does not, by itself, render their behaviour as immoral or sinful; in particular, since such behaviour is not susceptible to moral opprobrium precisely because the actions of children are not rational in the way required to meet the minimum standards of what constitutes undertaking intentional moral activity.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Note, that the CCC says “each and every MAN,”…

So WOMEN are excluded?

…the presumption being that the natural law is engraved (as a totality) in the soul of fully ADULT human beings,

…and TEENAGERS are also excluded?

Ergo, your pointing at human children acting contrary to the natural law as “evidence” against natural law isn’t even relevant to your case.

But it is, because certain activities - like masturbation or lying or theft - are supposed to be intrinsically “evil”. The word “intrinsically” means that regardless of the person; her age; regardless of the circumstances, the activity ITSELF is “evil”. At least that is what the church says.

Besides, if the “floating” age of reason is used as the dividing line, by that time the education / training / indoctrination process is pretty much over, so there is no evidence that there was some nebulous, unobservable “chisel and hammer” to have the moral laws engraved on the person’s “heart”. The training process is a sufficient explanation for everything.

How come that no one argues that Catholicism is “etched or inscribed” unto the human heart, and those who are not catholics simply disregard the ingrained, inborn, “natural” desire to become catholics?

Just like people’s moral compass is the result of their upbringing, their religion is also the result of their environment, and there is nothing surprising about this fact.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Please forgive me, but I overlooked this post of yours.

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?

It all depends on what you call “morals”. Some animals grieve for their dead, others exhibit a helpful behavior - especially protecting their children.

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.

Feral children exhibit very few social skills, precisely because they had no opportunity to learn them. If and when they are exposed to human company, they will start to learn what we call socially acceptable behavior, which also points to a learning (as opposed to an inborn) process.

 

[fred_conty]

'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?

“natural law.” Paul makes note of such law when discussing those of his own time who were never bound by Old Testament law: “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts . . .”
(Rom. 2:14-15a).

Here is an explanation of the various ways we understand natural law.
goodmorals.org/smith5.htm

May you be blessed with the Lord’s goodness.

 

[Rau]

…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.

I’m not expert in the subject, but I believe the meaning is not that we are “pre-programmed” (akin to being born already knowing our “times tables)”, but rather we are capable of discovering various rights and wrongs by application of reason. Aquinas had to “figure stuff out”. So whether such insight is immediately accessible to young children, with limited capacity to reason appropriately, may not be pertinent.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I’m not expert in the subject, but I believe the meaning is not that we are “pre-programmed” (akin to being born already knowing our “times tables)”, but rather we are capable of discovering various rights and wrongs by application of reason. Aquinas had to “figure stuff out”. So whether such insight is immediately accessible to young children, with limited capacity to reason appropriately, may not be pertinent.

The argument always was that we have an inborn, natural moral compass (inscribed on the human “heart”) which allows us to discern the “moral” behavior. That would point to a pre-programmed, rather than a learned behavior. A learned behavior would be the result of the learning process - which is what we see when we study different cultures. Why call it then “natural moral law”?

 

[Rau]

The argument always was that we have an inborn, natural moral compass (inscribed on the human “heart”) which allows us to discern the “moral” behavior. That would point to a pre-programmed, rather than a learned behavior. A learned behavior would be the result of the learning process - which is what we see when we study different cultures. Why call it then “natural moral law”?

Prthaps you read too much into “the argument” as you put it. The law is a discoverable thing, but requires reason. Look at the process Aquinas pursued. I believe it is called “natural” because of its connection to the nature of man.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Prthaps you read too much into “the argument” as you put it. The law is a discoverable thing, but requires reason. Look at the process Aquinas pursued. I believe it is called “natural” because of its connection to the nature of man.

Yes, not “natural” because man is a biological entity, i.e., arising in the natural world, but because man is by nature a rational animal. It is in the nature of man to be rational - i.e., able to use reason - which implies being capable of discerning the good using intellectual faculties and acting according to that informed will.

The notion that we have “a natural, inborn moral compass” goes along with the myth that modernists have understood Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy and have thoroughly refuted it. The real story is that AT metaphysics and ethics haven’t been properly understood and the “common understanding” that purports to be an accurate portrayal has been thoroughly debunked precisely because Thomas did that work himself.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Prthaps you read too much into “the argument” as you put it. The law is a discoverable thing, but requires reason. Look at the process Aquinas pursued. I believe it is called “natural” because of its connection to the nature of man.

Do you really think so? How come that an overwhelming majority of the people (since the dawn of time) understood and professed that recreational sex, extra-marital sex, non-procreative sex are perfectly fine. There is no “natural revulsion” built into us or “scribbled” onto our heart. I have been told many times that people “instinctively” know that recreational sex is “wrong”, they simply suppress this knowledge, because they like to partake in such “immoral” practices. But that does not seem to be the case.

So, if this “natural law” can be discovered by reason, then the “natural law” is NOT what the church teaches, because reason tells us something totally different. Either way the result is not what the church teaches. If the “natural moral law” would be truly etched onto our heart then children would instinctively exhibit it - which they do NOT. If the “natural moral law” is an acquired or learned behavior, then it is not the one that the church “insists”, it is exactly the opposite.

So you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Rau]

Do you really think so? How come that an overwhelming majority of the people (since the dawn of time) understood and professed that recreational sex, extra-marital sex, non-procreative sex are perfectly fine. There is no “natural revulsion” built into us or “scribbled” onto our heart. I have been told many times that people “instinctively” know that recreational sex is “wrong”, they simply suppress this knowledge, because they like to partake in such “immoral” practices. But that does not seem to be the case.

So, if this “natural law” can be discovered by reason, then the “natural law” is NOT what the church teaches, because reason tells us something totally different. Either way the result is not what the church teaches. If the “natural moral law” would be truly etched onto our heart then children would instinctively exhibit it - which they do NOT. If the “natural moral law” is an acquired or learned behavior, then it is not the one that the church “insists”, it is exactly the opposite.

So you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I can’t speak for what you’ve been told! Man’s capacity to act without thought, to delude himself or to choose wrong knowingly has never been doubted. God had ample cause to dwell among us and to reveal himself and his divine law. And still man strays!

 

[davidv]

Do you really think so? How come that an overwhelming majority of the people (since the dawn of time) understood and professed that recreational sex, extra-marital sex, non-procreative sex are perfectly fine.

What your source for this rather bold claim?

There is no “natural revulsion” built into us or “scribbled” onto our heart. I have been told many times that people “instinctively” know that recreational sex is “wrong”, they simply suppress this knowledge, because they like to partake in such “immoral” practices. But that does not seem to be the case.

So, if this “natural law” can be discovered by reason, then the “natural law” is NOT what the church teaches, because reason tells us something totally different. Either way the result is not what the church teaches. If the “natural moral law” would be truly etched onto our heart then children would instinctively exhibit it - which they do NOT. If the “natural moral law” is an acquired or learned behavior, then it is not the one that the church “insists”, it is exactly the opposite.

So you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

So, why should we believe this supposed majority got it right? Besides, an argument based on a majority is logically invalid.

The truth is true even if no one believes it, and a falsehood is false even if everyone believes it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you really think so? How come that an overwhelming majority of the people (since the dawn of time) understood and professed that recreational sex, extra-marital sex, non-procreative sex are perfectly fine.

Well now I think you are just making things up, unless “the dawn of time” refers to the 1960s.

No, before reliable artificial contraception came onto the scene, “the majority of people” understood that "recreational sex, extra-marital sex and non-procreative sex - an odd idea that likely never existed before ABC - could very likely mean having a child to bear responsibility for. They understood the possible consequences and social taboos were in place to dissuade “recreational sex” and “extra-marital sex.” “Non-procreative sex” is a relatively recent phenomenon.

I get this sense that “the dawn of time” refers to the confluence of space and time within a decade or so of your becoming a conscious being.

There is no “natural revulsion” built into us or “scribbled” onto our heart. I have been told many times that people “instinctively” know that recreational sex is “wrong”, they simply suppress this knowledge, because they like to partake in such “immoral” practices. But that does not seem to be the case.

So, if this “natural law” can be discovered by reason, then the “natural law” is NOT what the church teaches, because reason tells us something totally different. Either way the result is not what the church teaches. If the “natural moral law” would be truly etched onto our heart then children would instinctively exhibit it - which they do NOT. If the “natural moral law” is an acquired or learned behavior, then it is not the one that the church “insists”, it is exactly the opposite.

So you seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

We’ve been through all this before. Now you are just declaring that others are between a rock and hard place when your view of “natural law” has been shown to be based upon a thoroughly inadequate understanding. When someone simply doesn’t want to understand, there is no remediation that can happen.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you really think so? How come that an overwhelming majority of the people (since the dawn of time) understood and professed that recreational sex, extra-marital sex, non-procreative sex are perfectly fine. There is no “natural revulsion” built into us or “scribbled” onto our heart. I have been told many times that people “instinctively” know that recreational sex is “wrong”, they simply suppress this knowledge, because they like to partake in such “immoral” practices. But that does not seem to be the case.

Then where did the commandment: Thou shalt not commit adultery come from?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I can’t speak for what you’ve been told! Man’s capacity to act without thought, to delude himself or to choose wrong knowingly has never been doubted.

I am not sure what you mean here. Do you assert that there IS an inborn moral compass, but humans volitionally disregard it?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What your source for this rather bold claim?

History.

So, why should we believe this supposed majority got it right? Besides, an argument based on a majority is logically invalid.

I am not talking about right or wrong. Simply observing that the ultra-conservative Catholic view of sexual morality is restricted to a handful of people.

 

[davidv]

History.

What history? What statistically sound studies are in evidence. I sense a huge cloud of smoke, i.e., fictional statistics, made up on the spot in a desperate attempt at support an untenable position.

I am not talking about right or wrong.

Why not? Natural moral law is about what is right and what is wrong.

Simply observing that the ultra-conservative Catholic view of sexual morality is restricted to a handful of people.

More fictional statistics?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What history?

You know what? Give me just ONE society which lived according to the ultra-conservative catholic sexual mores. There is none.

Why not? Natural moral law is about what is right and what is wrong.

Before a method can be applied to decide what is “right” and what is “wrong”, that tool needs to exist, and then it needs to be calibrated.

More fictional statistics?

No. Just look at the problems of dwindling church attendance, affirmed by the Vatican. Just look at the emerging trend of the so-called cafeteria catholics, who disagree with the ultra-conservative agenda, who obviously do NOT embrace that so-called “natural moral law”. It is not “inscribed” onto their “heart”. Maybe their heart only pumps blood.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No. Just look at the problems of dwindling church attendance, affirmed by the Vatican. Just look at the emerging trend of the so-called cafeteria catholics, who disagree with the ultra-conservative agenda, who obviously do NOT embrace that so-called “natural moral law”. It is not “inscribed” onto their “heart”. Maybe their heart only pumps blood.

You seem to forget that there were times when Christians were fed to lions, beheaded and boiled in oil.

My suspicion is that you would classify those willing to be martyred for their faith as something much more extreme than “ultra-conservative.” “Insanely fanatic,” perhaps? Or “just plain nuts” because we moderns have it all figured out.

Which simply means you really don’t understand the Faustian bargain being entered into by “moderns.”

Do you really suppose the insanity that is the modern world has truly figured out the ultimate meaning of reality, despite “emerging trends” and “dwindling numbers?” You can have your “emerging trends,” I am setting my face in the opposite direction from virtually every movement of the mindless hordes.