What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Well that’s a non sequitur. Natural doesn’t mean “have automatic access to it.” At least that has never been the claim of natural law theorists. It may be the contrived equivocation being used by those who choose not to understand the difference between “according to the nature of” and “biological in origin.”

The ability to reason may be called “natural” to human beings but that does not entail every human being has unqualified access to the ability to reason and must be reflexively and automatically correct in every conclusion (moral or otherwise) they draw. That just seems inherently (in the nature of reason) nonsensical.

Are you claiming that human beings do not have a conscience as a “natural” aspect of being human? Or that human beings do not “by nature” distinguish between the idea that some thoughts/desires/acts are good and others bad? Or that human beings by nature do not clearly and integrally grasp the concept of morality or of the obligation to be moral or morally good?

Surely, being “moral” is not a foreign, alien or contrived idea with respect to human beings. Wouldn’t you at least admit that being moral or having distinctively moral view vis a vis life, decisions and action is natural to human beings?

And if “being moral” has no verifiable grounds upon which it can be determined whether one is being moral or not, then the whole exercise just seems fatuous. Is that your claim, then: morality is fatuous?

All human beings wonder whether they have chosen or done “the right thing” whenever serious or important issues arise. Isn’t THAT “natural” to human beings? I say it is. You seem to be claiming the entire venture is a waste of time - just do whatever because whatever you do is no more or less determinably good than anything else you choose to do. That just seems absurdly wrong.

I would also claim it is natural for human beings to seek to discover the grounds of what makes choices, actions or behaviours right or good, such that human beings have a natural propensity to be good moral agents and seek to know when and where they have been successful and when they haven’t been. In Socrates’ words, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” I submit that a claim that the natural moral law is not incumbent upon us is tantamount to claiming human beings are not, by nature, moral agents at all and that morality is an illusion. The quality of “good,” according to the implications of your view, is, itself, meaningless.

I think you would have a difficult time promoting the idea that the distinction between good and bad is not a “natural” aspect of human reasoning.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But it’s meant to be written into our hearts.

Actually, from a theological perspective, the fact that the Ten Commandments were written on stone tablets is a commentary (by God) on the fact that he has an easier time writing the moral law on solid stone than he does on the human heart.

In fact, I suggest that Jesus stooping and writing in the sand when the woman caught in adultery was brought before him, was a second “comment” by God on the human condition - that writing the moral law on human hearts was akin to writing an unchanging message on shifting sand. It’s permanence there is dubious. But that doesn’t mean the moral law wasn’t intended to be written there - it is just that the medium isn’t necessarily very cooperative. Precious, perhaps, but not necessarily compliant.

The fact that it was “meant to be written into our hearts” does not entail that it consistently has been or that God’s task is simple or automatic.

 

[Latias]

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.

Does that have to do with occidental history rather than Catholic theology. The Thirty Years War, and various other European wars (often with sectarian religious interests being involved) seemed to ingrain the notion of the separation of church and state in political philosophy. Does it also have something to do with the popularity of Wahhabism and Qutbism eclipsing an interpretation of Islam that can tolerate cultural and political liberalism? Or that most Baa’thist regimes have been targeted by NATO?

Also the fall of colonialism and flourishing of liberal democracy was the primary reason why a Catholic theocracy, Salazar’s Estado Novo of Portugal fell during the Carnation Revolution, despite it having a repressive secret policy.

So where Salazar’s colonial interests compatible with natural law? But is natural law’s bailiwick solely maintain traditional family and sexual morality instead of political philosophy?

 

[Bradski]

Well that’s a non sequitur. Natural doesn’t mean “have automatic access to it.”

But you class it as innate:

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.

There is therefore no way that one cannot have automatic access to it. So I most definitely disagree with this:

The ability to reason may be called “natural” to human beings but that does not entail every human being has unqualified access to the ability to reason…

Every single person, by virtue of being human, has access to that ability to reason. It could almost be said that that is what makes us human. Now whether one uses it or not or whether it is used correctly is the current point in question, so I agree with this.

… (does not entail every human being) must be reflexively and automatically correct in every conclusion (moral or otherwise) they draw.

What the correct position might be is the debatable point and your point would be that the Catholic position is the correct one. Yet in sexual matters, specifically SSM, you have shown yourself to be reluctant to use Catholics as an example of where the correct decisions are being made. Which isn’t really a surprise, as it has been pointed out that overwhelmingly Catholic countries are coming to conclusions at odds with the church. Ireland being the case in point.

And in no way am I going to accept that the decisions being made are being made on a whim. That people are following the herd. That not enough thought has gone into these questions. Good heavens, the debate in Ireland went on for some considerable time and both sides had ample opportunities to make their points. More to the point, all the people that voted had ample opportunity to think long and hard about the matter. This wasn’t a snap shot poll with a loosely worded question. As you yourself say:

All human beings wonder whether they have chosen or done “the right thing” whenever serious or important issues arise. Isn’t THAT “natural” to human beings? I say it is.

So do I.

You seem to be claiming the entire venture is a waste of time - just do whatever because whatever you do is no more or less determinably good than anything else you choose to do. That just seems absurdly wrong.

You are fond of putting words in my mouth. I have never said that or given any indication of that. In fact, will say quite categorically that ‘the entire venture’ is vitally important and about as far from a waste of time as it’s possible to get. The problem is, you cannot accept that people are actually going through this process and coming to decisions that don’t reflect your own opinions. Or rather, there are people who are concurring with your opinions. It’s just that they live in places like Iraq and Iran.

So, the same question again in yet another form: Can we now say that the majority of Catholics now disagree with the Church on sexual matters?

 

[Tomdstone]

Can we now say that the majority of Catholics now disagree with the Church on sexual matters?

The polls certainly seem to indicate wide disagreement with Church teaching on artificial birth control.
In fact, a local priest at a church picnic said that he thought that it was 90% or more of his married parishioners who disagreed.
The problem I see is that the Christian leadership in the fight against SS marriage is now in Russia and other Eastern Orthodox countries, with polls showing that 85% of Russians oppose SS marriage. I don’t see why a Catholic poster here thinks that is “great”. It seems to be a disaster when the world has to look to Hindu countries, to Islamic countries or to Eastern Orthodox countries for moral leadership in this area? Why are so many Roman Catholic countries throwing out consideration of the natural law, whereas the Hindus, the Muslims, and the Eastern Orthodox are embracing it?

 

[Rau]

…Can we now say that the majority of Catholics now disagree with the Church on sexual matters?

I don’t think we can know exactly what they truly believe. But I think a large proportion of people (includes Catholics) behave contrary to the moral norms taught by their Church. This is certainly true in sexual matters, and also in other areas, eg. theft (pirating), etc.

 

[Bradski]

Tolerance is the key.

Russia for example has a widely reported (and condemned) civil rights record against gay people. And in places such as India and Pakistan homosexuality is actually illegal. It’s therefore not difficult to see that these type of countries would not countenance SSM. It’s not that they are coming to the right decisions on these matters via Natural Law and natural reason – it’s that the question never arises in societies which are anti-homosexual in the first instance.

So here is the Catholic dilemma. If you espouse tolerance towards gay people then you must accept that people, becoming more tolerant, are going to eventually treat them as equals. In all matters. And insipid arguments such that this tab is made for that slot are seen as irrelevant. It’s no good now complaining: ‘Hey, we didn’t mean for you to be that tolerant!’

Too late for that…

 

[Peter_Plato]

What the correct position might be is the debatable point and your point would be that the Catholic position is the correct one. Yet in sexual matters, specifically SSM, you have shown yourself to be reluctant to use Catholics as an example of where the correct decisions are being made. Which isn’t really a surprise, as it has been pointed out that overwhelmingly Catholic countries are coming to conclusions at odds with the church. Ireland being the case in point.

Many nominal Catholics neither understand nor can they explicate the “Catholic position.” The reason the secular position has been bought wholesale is that it is much easier to abide by, takes no moral effort, requires no sacrifice and the approval of the masses comes with it. Those are almost sufficient to disqualify it as a serious moral position.

 

[Rau]

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.

Through reason, not a database lookup.

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.

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.

Anglican and Protestant countries also! The natural law is reachable by all persons, and Catholics are not advantaged in this regard. We can speculate on why various countries come to various positions, and we could do the same for a given country and various time-periods.

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’.

I don’t know how they come to their beliefs. Do you? I know that I personally find it self-evident that sexual activity between 2 men is out of place, broken and contrary to evident nature of the participants. Their anatomy, their biology, the progression and events in the act make that apparent to me.

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?

Catholics (or Anglicans, or Americans, etc.) don’t cease to be members of that “tribe” through a failure to obey every law.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Tolerance is the key.

Tolerance is a red herring - a decaying and fetid one at that.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Through reason, not a database lookup.

And it certainly doesn’t have “read only” privileges. Seems like everyone and his dog thinks they have read AND write administrative access. Which explains why the database has become unreadable.

It’s not like Bradski would be content with “automatic lookup,” his position is that anyone should and could write the “natural law” for themselves. Then he wonders why it is not longer easy to access.

In digital speak it would be called a corrupted file.
In folk wisdom, it would be “too many chefs spoil the stew.”
In Bradski-speak it is “tolerance.”

 

[Tomdstone]

Tolerance is a red herring - a decaying and fetid one at that.

Why? Are you opposed to tolerance?

 

[Rau]

…Russia for example has a widely reported (and condemned) civil rights record against gay people. And in places such as India and Pakistan homosexuality is actually illegal. It’s therefore not difficult to see that these type of countries would not countenance SSM. It’s not that they are coming to the right decisions on these matters via Natural Law and natural reason – it’s that the question never arises in societies which are anti-homosexual in the first instance.

What underpins the hatred and violence directed at homosexual persons (practicing or not)? I have no idea. As regrettable as that may be, it is plainly consistent with refusal to approve SSM. in those countries exhibiting the bad behaviours you cite. Natural Law considerations may or may not play a part in their view about the morality of homosexual activity, but the further step of hatred, abuse and violence comes from something else entirely.

So here is the Catholic dilemma. If you espouse tolerance towards gay people then you must accept that people, becoming more tolerant, are going to eventually treat them as equals. In all matters. And insipid arguments such that this tab is made for that slot are seen as irrelevant. It’s no good now complaining: ‘Hey, we didn’t mean for you to be that tolerant!’

There is no dilemma. And the observation of the nature of man, of his anatomy, of the nature of sexual relations is not “insipid” - it is a reality to which many are willing to entirely close their eyes (in the name of “tolerance” or otherwise).

 

[Bradski]

Many nominal Catholics neither understand nor can they explicate the “Catholic position.” The reason the secular position has been bought wholesale is that it is much easier to abide by, takes no moral effort, requires no sacrifice and the approval of the masses comes with it. Those are almost sufficient to disqualify it as a serious moral position.

Ah yes. Agree with you and you are thoughtful and knowledgeable. Someone who is making the difficult decisions in life. Like the Iranians maybe? Or the Iraqis? Maybe they have a better understanding of the ‘Catholic position’ than the Irish.

Disagree, and it’s not because you have thought about it in any meaningful way. It’s because you don’t understand the position of the church. It’s because you are taking the easy way out. It’s because you have no moral fibre. It’s because you are not prepared to make any sacrifices. It’s because you follow the herd. You have to know that you are describing the majority of Catholics.

Tolerance is a red herring - a decaying and fetid one at that.

Tolerance is what the church requires from you. Perhaps you can point me to a country that is becoming more tolerant towards gays that isn’t also moving towards an acceptance of SSM? The one precedes the other. And the genie ain’t going back in the bottle, Peter.

It wasn’t that long ago that I was in a small minority. Maybe less than a generation. Now you are in that position.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Through reason, not a database lookup.

Well, let’s see. Suppose we have a young, married couple. They are at the beginning of their life together, they are still quite poor, working to establish their future. They are very much in love with each other, and they are aware that they simply cannot afford to have children until they can provide them a good, solid home and upbringing (as responsible parents should do).

Nevertheless, they are burning with desire with giving and receiving pleasure, to express their love and to enhance their mutual commitment toward each other. Young people have very strong stamina, they are able and willing to have sex every day, sometimes even several times a day. What kind of “reason” would compel them to stay chaste for several days every month to avoid pregnancy?

Because the reason which I have access to, simply sees nothing wrong with expressing one’s love, while making sure that unwanted pregnancy cannot occur (yes, it is possible ). As a matter of fact, when one concentrates on the pleasure of one’s partner without worrying about the undesired “side effect”; the mutual commitment becomes much stronger, and thus the unitive aspect is in full effect. Don’t forget, “giving” is better than “receiving”.

 

[Rau]

Well, let’s see. Suppose we have a young, married couple. They are at the beginning of their life together, they are still quite poor, working to establish their future. They are very much in love with each other, and they are aware that they simply cannot afford to have children until they can provide them a good, solid home and upbringing (as responsible parents should do).

Nevertheless, they are burning with desire with giving and receiving pleasure, to express their love and to enhance their mutual commitment toward each other. Young people have very strong stamina, they are able and willing to have sex every day, sometimes even several times a day. What kind of “reason” would compel them to stay chaste for several days every month to avoid pregnancy?

Because the reason which I have access to, simply sees nothing wrong with expressing one’s love, while making sure that unwanted pregnancy cannot occur (yes, it is possible ). As a matter of fact, when one concentrates on the pleasure of one’s partner without worrying about the undesired “side effect”; the mutual commitment becomes much stronger, and thus the unitive aspect is in full effect. Don’t forget, “giving” is better than “receiving”.

For another perspective, read humane vitae.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

For another perspective, read humane vitae.

Reason does not depend on “perspective”. Reason does not require a-priori acceptance of a specific point of view. That is the beauty of reason. No matter what my individual starting point might be, a reasonable argument would convince me that I am wrong in my assessment. So, what is the secular reason which would prove that periodic chastity is preferable to express the love and commitment of the couple in question. If there is none, you are welcome to say so. If there is one, enlighten me. (Don’t forget, you were the one who said that “reason” is sufficient).

 

[Rau]

Reason does not depend on “perspective”. Reason does not require a-priori acceptance of a specific point of view. That is the beauty of reason. No matter what my individual starting point might be, a reasonable argument would convince me that I am wrong in my assessment. So, what is the secular reason which would prove that periodic chastity is preferable to express the love and commitment of the couple in question. If there is none, you are welcome to say so. If there is one, enlighten me.

Did you read it? Did you see reasons?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Did you read it? Did you see reasons?

Of course I read it. I did not see any valid reasons. Maybe I overlooked them. Would you quote them for my edification?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, let’s see. Suppose we have a young, married couple. They are at the beginning of their life together, they are still quite poor, working to establish their future. They are very much in love with each other, and they are aware that they simply cannot afford to have children until they can provide them a good, solid home and upbringing (as responsible parents should do).

Nevertheless, they are burning with desire with giving and receiving pleasure, to express their love and to enhance their mutual commitment toward each other. Young people have very strong stamina, they are able and willing to have sex every day, sometimes even several times a day. What kind of “reason” would compel them to stay chaste for several days every month to avoid pregnancy?

Because the reason which I have access to, simply sees nothing wrong with expressing one’s love, while making sure that unwanted pregnancy cannot occur (yes, it is possible ). As a matter of fact, when one concentrates on the pleasure of one’s partner without worrying about the undesired “side effect”; the mutual commitment becomes much stronger, and thus the unitive aspect is in full effect. Don’t forget, “giving” is better than “receiving”.

The kind of reason that would compel them to stay chaste for several days a month are the reasons you mentioned - they cannot afford a child at the moment and cannot at the moment provide any children with a good home and upbringing.

Now if your point is that no reasons exist, in principle, that should stop the young couple from “expressing their love” then why should facts such as not being married, being married to another person or that their love involves two or three other persons stop them from “burning with desire,” “giving and receiving pleasure, to express their love and to enhance their mutual commitment toward each other?”

What you are describing is not love, but unbridled passion. Love is “… patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” Passion wants what it wants NOW.

Love is not stupid, nor oblivious to the world around it. If one or other of the two partners have just had some surgical procedure, you are not claiming they ought to ignore that situation because they are “…young people” with “very strong stamina, they are able and willing to have sex every day, sometimes even several times a day.” And that no “kind of ‘reason’ would compel them to stay chaste for several days.”

Of course, it isn’t that you think there is “no reason” that should compel them to restrain their passions for each other, but that you think religious, spiritual or moral ends don’t provide those reasons. Yours is the belief of the modern age that passions and “what we want” are the only legitimate ends. The fact that you can’t see past those and, therefore, “see no reasons” is not surprising.

The young couple are called to love, not simply to “indulge their passions for each other.” Love that is not or will not be tempered by reason, circumstance or ends is not love, it is passion, pure and simple. You may as well claim the young couple has some kind of inherent right to indulge their passions whenever and wherever they wish because “no reasons” exist that ought to stop them. A very high, but misplaced, view of passions. Passions simply are not that important, nor are they the substance of what love is.

By the way, I see no difference between “cannot afford to have children until they can provide them a good, solid home and upbringing” and “having children and needing to look after their needs.” Think of the needs of future children as being practice for the actual love the couple will need to show their eventual embodied and real children. Or are you claiming it would be legitimate for a married couple “burning with love” to ignore the needs of those embodied children (when they exist) in order to indulge their passions? That is the problem with viewing children as “accessories” rather than “integral to” marriage.