What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

There is nothing to correct, you are right on the money. To bring up some miniscule religious subgroups as examples of the adherents to some “natural law” looks like a sign of desperation, since he is unable to point to some actual examples.

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.

Not to mention the examples set by some popes and other “men of the cloth” with their out-of-wedlock children. Sure looks like that they were unaware of the “natural law”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

Procreation is only a small part of sexuality. Consider that most sexual encounters do not end with conception. Further consider that a huge percentage of the ones where conception happens ends with the zygote being flushed out from the woman’s body.

In the animal world - with the exception of the higher apes (and humans belong to that group) - there is no “sexual desire” outside the time of the estrus. If God wanted us to have sex only when procreation is the likely outcome, he could have created us just like the rest of the animal world. But we are not like that. The only logical explanation is that God has no problem with having sex whenever we feel like it, and he does not care if we wish to procreate or not. But this is just cold, dispassionate logic which has nothing to do with beliefs.

 

[Rau]

Procreation is only a small part of sexuality. Consider that most sexual encounters do not end with conception. Further consider that a huge percentage of the ones where conception happens ends with the zygote being flushed out from the woman’s body.

In the animal world - with the exception of the higher apes (and humans belong to that group) - there is no “sexual desire” outside the time of the estrus. If God wanted us to have sex only when procreation is the likely outcome, he could have created us just like the rest of the animal world. But we are not like that. The only logical explanation is that God has no problem with having sex whenever we feel like it, and he does not care if we wish to procreate or not. But this is just cold, dispassionate logic which has nothing to do with beliefs.

Human anatomy is not so readily ignored when considering SSM, which is what I was addressing.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is nothing to correct, you are right on the money. To bring up some miniscule religious subgroups as examples of the adherents to some “natural law” looks like a sign of desperation, since he is unable to point to some actual examples.

Well, no actually, it is a sign that you weren’t very clear about what you meant by “societies.” I assumed you meant those groups of human beings with distinctive mores, ethical or societal norms and would self-identify as a distinct social group.

Now you claim to be talking about something different, but leave out, completely the “such as…,” at the same time as you disparage my offerings as “minuscule sub-groups.” Didn’t you ask for examples of “ultra-conservative” societies, meaning those which would self-identify as distinct social groups?

Oh, now I get it, you mean, something like: ”When in the past did the entire agglomeration of “human society” embrace “ultra-conservativism?”

As to why I chose to exclude Catholicism from a list of societies which espouse “ultra-conservativism,” I don’t personally think of Catholicism as ultra-conservative." Reasonable, inventive, well-ahead of the times, and far ahead of the childish nonsense of liberal progressivism with its emphasis on the ego, childish emotionalism and its floundering somewhere between Kohlberg’s pre-conventional and conventional moral stages, perhaps, but “ultra-conservative?” Really? What can I say? I thought we were having a meaningful and potentially fruitful discussion, not one just “going with” the folly and prejudices of the current age.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I think you misunderstood, but let’s take this first…

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

The Natural Law is as innate as the ability to reason. In the same way that human beings are considered rational animals (biological beings with the ability to reason) by nature - i.e., by the very nature of what it means to be a human being - the ability to think morally or be moral agents is “inbuilt” and entirely natural.

Now just as the fact that human beings having an “inbuilt” ability to reason is NO guarantee that human beings will actually use the faculty of reason or, indeed, use it well, the mere fact that human beings have the inbuilt capacity to recognize moral ends and act in a manner aligned to or corresponding with those ends, is NO guarantee that human beings will actually do so.

Are you denying that having a moral conscience is the normative condition for human beings?

As to…

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.

What I meant is that because licentiousness has undermined the inbuilt capacity of humans to successfully utilize the capacity for sound moral reasoning, the moral law had to be made explicit, formal and obvious, which is why it appears to be “not Natural” in the eyes of corrupted moral beings who have to be repeatedly hit over the head with moral beams and logs while at the same time avoiding moral gnats and swallowing moral camels.

 

[Bradski]

What I meant is that because licentiousness has undermined the inbuilt capacity of humans to successfully utilize the capacity for sound moral reasoning, the moral law had to be made explicit, formal and obvious, which is why it appears to be “not Natural” in the eyes of corrupted moral beings…

Then this would include Catholics.

The results in Ireland would indicate that the majority of Catholics cannot utilise this natural reasoning. Ditto the position of most Catholics on contraception. And on sex. And on abortion.

Now either the vast majority of Catholics are unable to reason in a morally acceptable way to reach the conclusions that the church hierarchy tells us is the correct one (the Natural one!) or…the conclusions are incorrect.

Now personally I would not argue that simply because the majority disagree with the church then the church is therefore wrong. I think the church is wrong for other reasons. But you must have noticed that the jury keeps coming in with verdicts with which you would not agree.

 

[Elizium23]

Procreation is only a small part of sexuality. Consider that most sexual encounters do not end with conception. Further consider that a huge percentage of the ones where conception happens ends with the zygote being flushed out from the woman’s body.

In the animal world - with the exception of the higher apes (and humans belong to that group) - there is no “sexual desire” outside the time of the estrus. If God wanted us to have sex only when procreation is the likely outcome, he could have created us just like the rest of the animal world. But we are not like that. The only logical explanation is that God has no problem with having sex whenever we feel like it, and he does not care if we wish to procreate or not. But this is just cold, dispassionate logic which has nothing to do with beliefs.

Congratulations, you have just written Humanae Vitae, and provided biological evidence for Natural Law.

The Church teaches that there is more to sex than procreation. It has two significances, procreative and unitive. Just as integral to having sex as being open to life is enjoying it and bringing the spouses together in love.

Indeed, God has no problem with a husband and wife having sex whenever they feel like it, because they become “one flesh”, and it is by this very design, together with revelation of Sacred Scripture, that the Church has deduced the structure of Natural Law. While the Catechism uses the poetic phrase, “written in our hearts” it is more like “written into our DNA” or “designed into our bodies”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then this would include Catholics.

Why would the fact that the average Catholic has a difficult time utilizing moral reasoning make Catholicism “ultra-conservative?”

Your reasoning on that one boggles me.

Recall that your point was to enquire into why I didn’t include Catholics in with the “ultra-conservative” societies. Somewhere our lines of reasoning went askew - see how easy that was? No wonder we have to formally explicate things in writing on paper, over and above hearts and minds just to keep things straight. Even then it doesn’t always work.

The results in Ireland would indicate that the majority of Catholics cannot utilise this natural reasoning. Ditto the position of most Catholics on contraception. And on sex. And on abortion.

Now either the vast majority of Catholics are unable to reason in a morally acceptable way to reach the conclusions that the church hierarchy tells us is the correct one (the Natural one!) or…the conclusions are incorrect.

Now personally I would not argue that simply because the majority disagree with the church then the church is therefore wrong. I think the church is wrong for other reasons. But you must have noticed that the jury keeps coming in with verdicts with which you would not agree.

Which jury? If it’s the “jury” I suspect you mean, that hypothetical jury can’t seem to follow a line of reasoning, why should its verdict matter?

 

[Tomdstone]

The Natural Law is as innate as the ability to reason.

The results in Ireland would indicate that the majority of Catholics cannot utilise this natural reasoning.

If SS marriage is against the natural law which is important to Catholics, why is it that in Catholic countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain they allow SS marriage, whereas in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or in Eastern Orthodox countries such as Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or Romania, or in Hindu countries such as India, they do not allow it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If SS marriage is against the natural law which is important to Catholics, why is it that in Catholic countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain they allow SS marriage, whereas in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or in Eastern Orthodox countries such as Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or Romania, or in Hindu countries such as India, they do not allow it.

Apparently “countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain” are not determinably “Catholic countries.”

The fact that Catholics, Muslims, Eastern Orthodox and Hindus all agree regarding SS marriage argues for natural law since these diverse religions which take moral matters seriously agree while those less inclined to take morality seriously or who seek to be emancipated from natural moral law eschew the very idea.

The same could be said about the rational faculty. If reason convinced you that a certain act or choice was the most reasonable but you did not want to do it, you may deride reason as not being compelling or sufficiently cogent even though the inferences drawn by using it were clear - just not those you want.

Try youtu.be/kcRFYGr1zcg

 

[Tomdstone]

Apparently “countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain” are not determinably “Catholic countries.”

When the Vatican says that there are 1.18 billion Catholics what does it mean? Should we believe them?
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-02-23-catholic_vatican_22_ST_N.htm

 

[icamhif]

From the CCC
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.

Ah, that just corrected my misconception that natural law teaches that all who violate them are going against their conscience.

 

[graciew]

If SS marriage is against the natural law which is important to Catholics, why is it that in Catholic countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain they allow SS marriage, whereas in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or in Eastern Orthodox countries such as Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or Romania, or in Hindu countries such as India, they do not allow it.

Ours became law after Deputies voted 126 vs 110 and 6 abstentions and Senators 33 vs 27 and 3 abstentions. President Kirchner in favour.

 

[Rau]

…The results in Ireland would indicate that the majority of Catholics cannot utilise this natural reasoning. Ditto the position of most Catholics on contraception. And on sex. And on abortion…

No, all we can say is that they chose a different path.

Wouldn’t it be nice if what is “right” was so clearly “documented” that one merely needs to glance in a “handbook” and have all our questions answered, and with such persuasive force that we could not do other than comply.? But life isn’t like that.

Consider also the possibility that some people (all with free will):

• choose not to think deeply about an issue and simply go with the flow; or
• think at some level, but quickly find an answer in conflict with another belief;
• think about the issue but discard their finding as it seems inconvenient or difficult.

 

[Rau]

If SS marriage is against the natural law which is important to Catholics, why is it that in Catholic countries such as Uruguay, Ireland, Argentina, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Spain they allow SS marriage, whereas in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, or in Eastern Orthodox countries such as Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria or Romania, or in Hindu countries such as India, they do not allow it.

SSM (like contraception and abortion) is self-evidently contrary to Natural Law - no “if” is required. It is self-evident. If you want to assert that Natural Law is of no substance, means nothing, carries no weight - just say that Tom!

Natural Law is an important element or underpinning of Catholic Theology. However, I’d suggest most Catholics know little, if anything, about it. These underpinnings are not taught routinely, in my experience. It’s also the case that countries with large Catholic populations are not generally theocracies, governed by or beholden to religious leaders. You might like to visit, Ireland, and then, say, Saudi Arabia, to see the difference.

 

[Tomdstone]

SSM (like contraception and abortion) is self-evidently contrary to Natural Law - no “if” is required. It is self-evident. If you want to assert that Natural Law is of no substance, means nothing, carries no weight - just say that Tom!

Natural Law is an important element or underpinning of Catholic Theology. However, I’d suggest most Catholics know little, if anything, about it. These underpinnings are not taught routinely, in my experience. It’s also the case that countries with large Catholic populations are not generally theocracies, governed by or beholden to religious leaders. You might like to visit, Ireland, and then, say, Saudi Arabia, to see the difference.

Eastern Orthodox Romania and Hindu India are not theocracies and yet they do not allow SS marriage as do Roman Catholic countries such as Portugal or Spain.

 

[Rau]

Eastern Orthodox Romania and Hindu India are not theocracies and yet they do not allow SS marriage as do Roman Catholic countries such as Portugal or Spain.

Great. Which means…what?

 

[Tomdstone]

Great. Which means…what?

That’s what I am trying to figure out. Why Roman Catholic countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Uruguay, Luxembourg, Spain, etc. allow SS marriage, when such is contrary to the natural law. The natural law is an important underpinning of Catholic theology and supposedly it is a law which is carved into men’s hearts and minds. And yet, in non-Catholic countries, such as Romania, Moldova, India, Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Belarus, Greece, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan SS marriage is not allowed. Opinion polls show that in Russia, 85% are opposed to SS marriage and in Romania it is 80% opposed to SS marriage. Why is there so much disobedience in the Catholic countries against the moral natural law? Could it be another failing which occurred after (or as an unintended consequence of) Vatican II? Does the world have to look to the Eastern Orthodox, the Hindu, the Islamic countries to uphold the teaching of the natural law against SS marriage?

Great.

I would not agree with your assessment that this is a great thing

 

[Rau]

… Why is there so much disobedience in the Catholic countries against the moral natural law?

At the risk of repeating myself, most Catholics like most citizens, no little if anything of natural law, and have not applied their minds to the issues to which it speaks. In this respect, the so-called Catholic countries are no different than the Anglican countries or the Protestant countries! It’s much easier to adopt the “live and let live” approach. It’s much easier to easier to fall in behind the popular chants of “non-discrimination”, or “compassion” as a justification for whatever makes people happy.

Now as to why the countries you list have not introduced SSM, you need to look at those countries.

 

[Bradski]

At the risk of repeating myself, most Catholics like most citizens, no little if anything of natural law…

But it’s meant to be written into our hearts. One doesn’t need a formal description. This is the whole argument FOR natural law. The clue is meant to be in the name. It is called natural because we all are supposed to have automatic access to it.

Now the point that is being continuously made is that countries or states or societies (however you would wish to describe them) that self describe as Catholic seem either not to be able to put their God given natural abilities to reason as to what is right to good use (which I find a little insulting - you are saying that if they reach a decision with which you disagree then they haven’t or cannot have put enough thought into it), or they have and they are reaching decisons on matters sexual which are in direct opposition to those societies which are not Catholic.

The result being is that the examples you have as to how to put natural law to good use and to reach correct decisions on matters such as SSM are those societies such as India, Iraq, Iran etc. they are the only societies that seem to ‘not follow the herd’.

The question has now been asked twice: If, to be considered Catholic, one needs to follow the precepts of the Catholic Church, then how many Catholic countries are there? Or, to put it another way, how many people can actually be considered Caholic?