What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[davidv]

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

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.

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.

How is any of the this evidence against the natural law? The number disobeying the law does not invalidate any law. Is the number of drivers obeying all traffic laws at the same level as this supposed ultra conservative above?

 

[Bradski]

What history?

Here’s a little:

However, we do know something about the Irish in the first few centuries of the Christian era, for they produced a considerable literature. It shows us a people strongly matriarchal and with few inhibitions about sexual matters. Virginity was not prized, and marriage was usually a trial marriage or a temporary arrangement. ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/taylorgr/sxnhst/chap2.htm

Interesting article. You should read it. And try some Shakespeare for hints and tips about sex in Elizabethan olde England. Or a bit of Chaucer. Or The Perfumed Garden. Or the Kama Sutra.

It’s hard not to find any period in history with a written record that doesn’t mention a hell of a lot of sex.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

How is any of the this evidence against the natural law? The number disobeying the law does not invalidate any law. Is the number of drivers obeying all traffic laws at the same level as this supposed ultra conservative above?

The traffic laws are artificial - not “natural”. And anyone, who is interested in the traffic laws can grab the books to enumerate them - of course they change from country to country and even from state to state. The alleged “natural” laws are supposed to be “inscribed onto the human heart”, so that everyone would be aware of them - without consulting law books. This is not the case. I mentioned the historical examples to show that people in different cultures have a widely different idea of “moral” behavior.

I asked you to provide just one example of a society with ultra-orthodox Christian sexual “morality”. Naturally you could not provide even one, since it does not and did not exist. No one outside a small minority of people believes that sex for fun is reprehensible, that one must always be open to procreation, etc… Sex is a natural part of life, it is pleasurable and as long it is consensual it is no one else’s business.

I would like to remind you, what is the so-called “oldest profession” on Earth? Yes, it is prostitution - meaning that most societies see nothing wrong with sex for money (as long as it is volitional and not forced).

 

[davidv]

The traffic laws are artificial - not “natural”. And anyone, who is interested in the traffic laws can grab the books to enumerate them - of course they change from country to country and even from state to state. The alleged “natural” laws are supposed to be “inscribed onto the human heart”, so that everyone would be aware of them - without consulting law books. This is not the case. I mentioned the historical examples to show that people in different cultures have a widely different idea of “moral” behavior.

I asked you to provide just one example of a society with ultra-orthodox Christian sexual “morality”. Naturally you could not provide even one, since it does not and did not exist. No one outside a small minority of people believes that sex for fun is reprehensible, that one must always be open to procreation, etc… Sex is a natural part of life, it is pleasurable and as long it is consensual it is no one else’s business.

I would like to remind you, what is the so-called “oldest profession” on Earth? Yes, it is prostitution - meaning that most societies see nothing wrong with sex for money (as long as it is volitional and not forced).

Ad populum fallacy. How about something rational to discuss?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I asked you to provide just one example of a society with ultra-orthodox Christian sexual “morality”. Naturally you could not provide even one, since it does not and did not exist. No one outside a small minority of people believes that sex for fun is reprehensible, that one must always be open to procreation, etc… Sex is a natural part of life, it is pleasurable and as long it is consensual it is no one else’s business.

I would like to remind you, what is the so-called “oldest profession” on Earth? Yes, it is prostitution - meaning that most societies see nothing wrong with sex for money (as long as it is volitional and not forced).

The problem is that it is the business of those new human beings whose lives are brought into existence quite frequently when “the little fun” occurs. Only in the past fifty or so years has sex “for fun” been the primary motive and look where it has got us. The number of human beings dismembered and trashed in the past fifty years is quite comparable to those who been killed in all the wars and genocides down through all of history. Nothing wrong with a little fun, but when the cost of that fun is a horrific body count then someone ought to sit up and take notice. Obviously, that someone won’t be you.

It is “no one’s business” only if your moral compass has gone wildly askew. Sure, we live in a political climate where the convenience of the wealthy, powerful and vocal carry more weight than the lives of the voiceless and powerless. The accounting will happen. We’ll see if it was worth the “little fun.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ad populum fallacy.

What “fallacy”? Obviously you do not have the foggiest idea what the “ad populum” fallacy is. I simply point out that the overwhelming majority of human societies (well… all of them) do not subscribe to your kind of “morality”. This is a FACT, not a conjecture. And I do not wish to draw any conclusion from this FACT.

How about something rational to discuss?

With whom? I asked you to provide ONE example of a society where the people would instinctively (inscribed unto their heart) know that certain kinds of sex are intrinsically “evil”. You are unable to provide even one example. So let me suggest: “put up or shut up”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What “fallacy”? Obviously you do not have the foggiest idea what the “ad populum” fallacy is. I simply point out that the overwhelming majority of human societies (well… all of them) do not subscribe to your kind of “morality”. This is a FACT, not a conjecture. And I do not wish to draw any conclusion from this FACT.

With whom? I asked you to provide ONE example of a society where the people would instinctively (inscribed unto their heart) know that certain kinds of sex are intrinsically “evil”. You are unable to provide even one example. So let me suggest: “put up or shut up”.

The same challenge can be posed to you. Name all those human societies (the overwhelming majority of human societies, you claim) that did not subscribe to morality of the kind basically subscribed to by davidv. In fact, can you even name one where dishonesty towards one’s neighbor, lying, cheating, stealing, breaking promises, being irresponsible or killing members of one’s own society were lauded as “morally good” by the entire society? Or where children, the offspring resulting from “sex for fun” were simply inconsequential to that fun? Granted, you might find a few - the equivalent of malignant cancers in the human moral landscape - but certainly not “the majority” by any stretch of the imagination.

People likely never thought “sex was intrinsically evil” except in some gnostic communities, but neither does davidv and neither does the Church. I would, however, be willing to go out on a limb and insist that even in those societies that held less rigorous standards regarding sexual behavior than your “ultra-conservative” ones, there were always, at least, SOME kinds of taboos against some kinds of sexual behaviour. Merely because, in a practical sense, the communty banded together to look after the offspring of less prohibitive sexual behaviour, that does not mean that when the costs to the community for promiscuous behaviour became exorbitant that at least some restraints were enforced by taboos and social prohibitions - each culture’s version of “sinful,” “bad” or “wrong.”

I suggest you view what Lewis had to say about the moral law, it may help you to see what you appear to be missing regarding what actually comprises morality or moral law.

youtu.be/l_VYCqCexow

Pay special attention to the end where a few examples of moral commonalities between widely divergent societies are highlighted.

 

[Bradski]

I would, however, be willing to go out on a limb and insist that even in those societies that held less rigorous standards regarding sexual behavior than your “ultra-conservative” ones, there were always, at least, SOME kinds of taboos against some kinds of sexual behaviour.

A very small limb indeed, Peter.

Do you know why there were no laws in earlier times that said you should not run a red light or smoke certain substances. That’s because nobody did those things. Do you know why they brought in prohibition? Because almost eveyone drank.

Now think about about all the requirements the church had against sex on various days, sex with people other than your wife/husband, sex with members of the same sex, sex with animals, sex in various positions, sex…well, just sex, really.

It’s because almost everyone was having sex. If you think otherwise I think that you have a naive understanding of the human condition. Sex was not invented in the sixties despite what you might have been told.

 

[Rau]

…Now think about about all the requirements the church had against sex … It’s because almost everyone was having sex.

Sex is your prototypical example here, but broadening the consideration to “bad behaviour” generally - you’ve summarised why Christ dwelt among us. To teach the right way to live, in accordance with the nature he gave us. OK - I understand you don’t accept there ever was a Christ, just a man named Jesus with some interesting ideas…

That bad behaviour was very common, and still is, does not render it not bad.

 

[Bradski]

Sex is your prototypical example here, but broadening the consideration to “bad behaviour” generally - you’ve summarised why Christ dwelt among us. To teach the right way to live, in accordance with the nature he gave us. OK - I understand you don’t accept there ever was a Christ, just a man named Jesus with some interesting ideas…

That bad behaviour was very common, and still is, does not render it not bad.

Except that your definition, and very many other people’s as well, of what constitutes bad behaviour, is very different indeed. And the point I am refuting is the one that has been made that very few people, except in the very recent past, have had sex simply because it feels good.

Sex, in all it’s almost mind boggingly variations, has been a staple of almost all societies in almost any era you’d care to mention. That, as you say, does not make it good. Just that to deny it seems almost perverse.

 

[Rau]

Except that your definition, and very many other people’s as well, of what constitutes bad behaviour, is very different indeed. And the point I am refuting is the one that has been made that very few people, except in the very recent past, have had sex simply because it feels good.

I think most instances of sexual relations, by most everyone are motivated by the feel-good nature of it. Far less are motivated by the desire to have a baby. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sex, in all it’s almost mind boggingly variations, has been a staple of almost all societies in almost any era you’d care to mention. That, as you say, does not make it good.

Exactly. Sex, like many things, is good under the right circumstances.

Just that to deny it seems almost perverse.

Well, I do deny that it is always a good act. I don’t think prostitution, orgies or sleeping around are good acts.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A very small limb indeed, Peter.

Do you know why there were no laws in earlier times that said you should not run a red light or smoke certain substances. That’s because nobody did those things. Do you know why they brought in prohibition? Because almost eveyone drank.

Now think about about all the requirements the church had against sex on various days, sex with people other than your wife/husband, sex with members of the same sex, sex with animals, sex in various positions, sex…well, just sex, really.

It’s because almost everyone was having sex. If you think otherwise I think that you have a naive understanding of the human condition. Sex was not invented in the sixties despite what you might have been told.

You must take a rather dim view of human rational capacity. Rules, laws and the like were not brought in because “almost everyone” was doing the thing in question. They were brought in because a sufficient number of people were doing so to create a problem. A “sufficient” number does not mean “everyone” precisely because if “everyone” were doing so, there would have been no one or, at least, a minority of people not doing so who would not have been a sufficient number to create a law, rule or prohibition in the first place. No, the reason any society brought in such rules, mores or sanctions was because just enough people were committing the deed to make such behaviour a problem. I don’t suppose rules against theft required “everyone” stealing before “everyone” realized “everyone” had a problem. Now, I think, YOU are just making stuff up.

I didn’t claim sex was “invented” in the sixties, that is just a blatant misrepresentation on your part to make cheap rhetorical points. What I claimed was sex purely for “fun,” and completely detached (by much of society) from responsibility for the children that may have resulted was invented in the sixties; at least, not too long after artificial birth control became readily available.

Nobody was arguing against the notion that people have always had sex for fun; the argument is that people didn’t always have sex merely for fun because prior to ABC taking responsibility for the creation of new human beings would have been a factor to consider for those who consented to have sex. Or are you saying people always have used only their reproductive organs and not their brains for making judgments and important life decisions? Not much of a “high” view with regard to human nature, now is it? Of course, it goes well with the modernist narrative that those humans who preceded us were more stupid, barbaric and driven more by irrational aims and desires than we “moderns” are today.

Actually, I would submit, just the opposite is the case. It is the horde of moderns that have descended into the pit of irrationality and licentiousness that is the reason the moral law exists in the first place. Some simply cannot help themselves and society has to step in with well-placed moral rules. Unfortunately, when the bulk of a democratic society are incapable of recognizing when real moral problems exist, or prefer to think with their groins, we are in a desperate situation. Not that the morally blind would recognize that, they are too busy “having fun” to take note or see when the situation is concerning. So today, “everyone” or, at least, the majority are too self-concerned seeking to pleasure themselves (taking Bentham literally, perhaps) that “everyone” nor even a majority exist who are capable of making make wise and prudent rules, laws and the like, but most are purely concerned with relaxing all rules, laws and the like. A wise move? The death toll of the innocent and voiceless continues to mount and “everyone” seems not to care.

 

[davidv]

What “fallacy”? Obviously you do not have the foggiest idea what the “ad populum” fallacy is.

Now attack the poster instead of the post. Nice. Not!. Should I have called it a red herring instead?

I simply point out that the overwhelming majority of human societies (well… all of them) do not subscribe to your kind of “morality”. This is a FACT, not a conjecture. And I do not wish to draw any conclusion from this FACT.

So what? What does what some in society do, have to do with the reality of natural law?

With whom? I asked you to provide ONE example of a society where the people would instinctively (inscribed unto their heart) know that certain kinds of sex are intrinsically “evil”. You are unable to provide even one example. So let me suggest: “put up or shut up”.

Likewise.

 

[Peter_Plato]

For those interested, the book, Return to Order, by John Horvat II is currently available for free on Amazon.

A section from the foreword to the book by Harry Veryser

The argument presented in this book is very unique in that it is at the same time very old and very new. It reaches back through the philosophers to the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle. In his book, The Republic, Plato presents an argument that the state of the Commonwealth is the state of the individual souls writ large.

Plato saw in democratic societies a danger that the desires of the people for bodily satisfactions would outrun the resources of the State and result, eventually, in a tyranny.

Aristotle also was concerned about the problems of the democratic society in which people, being free, would allow their desires to become disorderly and inimical to the common good. To overcome this tendency, he recommended a mixed or constitutional regime.

In Return to Order, John Horvat II continues the argument by teasing out its application to the present twenty- first century. Applying it to the economic, financial, social, and finally moral crisis faced by Western civilization, he argues for a return to the cardinal virtues, particularly temperance. This is a new way of looking at the present economy and social order.

The main argument of the book would seem appropriate to this thread.

Link is here:

amazon.com/Return-Order-Frenzied-Christian-Society-Where-ebook/dp/B00B5HED8W?utm_source=sm-tfpsa&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0316&utm_campaign=tfpsa_newsletter

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Now attack the poster instead of the post.

I did not “attack” you. I simply pointed out that you don’t understand this particular fallacy. As such, maybe I should enlighten you about the “ad populum fallacy”. It simply says that “as long as the majority of the people considers something true, then it is true”. (Example: since most people believe in the existence of some god or gods - which is a correct observation - therefore some god or gods must exist. That would be an ad populum fallacy.) I did not evaluate the “morality” of the sexual behavior, simply pointed out the FACT that there was no society, ever, which would have lived according the ultra-conservative standards.

So what? What does what some in society do, have to do with the reality of natural law?

Not just “some”. It is suggested that the “natural law” is an integral part of being human, and if the humans do NOT live according to it, then there is no “natural law”. Alternately, you could argue that people instinctively know that sex-for-fun is intrinsically evil, but they simply disregard it. Good luck with proving that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I …simply pointed out the FACT that there was no society, ever, which would have lived according the ultra-conservative standards.

None? Ever?

Hmmm

It just boggles the imagination that you could make such a blatantly false assertion without, at least, a chill of embarrassment running down your spine.

Swartzentruber Amish? Essenes? Desert monks? Tibetan and Buddhist monks? Cenobitic monasticism? Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism? Sufism? Stoics in ancient Greece?

These are just off the top of my head.

 

[Bradski]

Of course, it goes well with the modernist narrative that those humans who preceded us were more stupid, barbaric and driven more by irrational aims and desires than we “moderns” are today.

Certainly less intelligent. Definitely more barbaric. Not as morally aware. Less informed and generally driven by our more basic desires.

Actually, I would submit, just the opposite is the case. It is the horde of moderns that have descended into the pit of irrationality and licentiousness that is the reason the moral law exists in the first place.

But isn’t the argument that the Natural Law, this inbuilt morality is entirely natural? You now say it exists because of modern licentiousness. That makes no sense. You are arguing that the Natural Law in not Natural but a function of modern imorality.

Swartzentruber Amish? Essenes? Desert monks? Tibetan and Buddhist monks? Cenobitic monasticism? Orthodox Judaism? Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism? Sufism? Stoics in ancient Greece?

These are just off the top of my head.

Pallas can correct me here if he wishes, but I was assuming that he was talking about societies in general not specific religious groups within any given society. I think you are proferring examples that prove the rule.

And your list is interesting more for the group that you didn’t include, rather than the ones you did. Isn’t it odd that a Catholic has to point to the Amish as a good example of sexual morals?

But I’ll grant you the difficulty of using your own religion as the best example to follow when so many of your own flock choose to ignore their own rules and regs. Ireland being the most obviously current example.

 

[Rau]

It seems that moral law is attacked on the basis that it is not what some thought it was, or thought they’d heard it was!

 

[Tomdstone]

But isn’t the argument that the Natural Law, this inbuilt morality is entirely natural?

Is the natural law for or against SS marriage? In Roman Catholic countries such as Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain they allow SS marriage,whereas in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, or in Eastern Orthodox countries such as Russia, or in Hindu countries such as India, they do not allow it. Is it true that what is naturally allowed by people of one faith is not natural for people of another faith?
How can the natural law be natural if there is this serious unnatural division of opinion between what is and what is not allowed?

 

[Rau]

Is the natural law for or against SS marriage?

What do you think man’s nature says about the proper context for use of the sexual faculty Tom. It’s not a difficult question! Hint: examine the bodies of male and female before answering.

See also my previous post. People can also not bother thinking about these things, or tell themsves it does not matter if it interferes with people doing what they desire!