What evidence is there for the natural moral law?

[Peter_Plato]

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”.

I suspect that your understanding of “the unitive aspect” is not one which has been tempered and refined by life. Recall that the unitive aspect is a reality across a number of dimensions - spiritual, emotional, intellectual, psychological, physiological and physical.

The physical union of a man and woman, alone, does not make a marriage, nor is it sufficient to sustain a marriage. A physical union is quite cheap in most countries. Neither does a physical union create a marriage.

There is nothing like going through the experience of almost losing a child, the death of a parent, the looming probability of serious heart surgery or the day-to-day challenge of dealing with life that will test the supposed “unitive” state of one’s marriage. The fact that a couple yearns to display affection or have sex ten or fifteen times a day is a poor metric by which to measure their bond of unity. What if the partner can’t have sex or doesn’t want to because of some emotional state they are in? Is that grounds for calling the “deals off,” then and looking for a partner that will better sustain the unitive aspect physically?

There is nothing like the specter of a serious disease, Alzheimer’s or pending death to make an aspiring partner recoil or retreat from their ideological proclamations about the “unitive” contributions sex makes to a marriage. When a party is happening, it isn’t difficult to proclaim, “I am with you,” but when the wolf is at the door, the mettle of the shepherd (and shepherds for each other) is tested. That is when the “unitive” aspect reveals itself for the “bond” it truly is. The willingness of two individuals to have sex with each other is a poor gauge for their commitment and real love they have for each other.

Personally, I highly doubt that concentrating “on the pleasure of one’s partner without worrying about the undesired ‘side effect’” make much of a contribution to “the mutual commitment” becoming “much stronger,” and thus the “**unitive aspect **” having its “full effect.” Life and reality will continue taking pot shots at “the unitive aspect” and basing it upon “pleasuring one’s partner” will soon cause the whole edifice to collapse.

There is nothing like facing challenges together, working out a solution to a gritty problem or going through a serious disease or surgery to be unitive along intellectual, spiritual, emotional and psychological lines. Sex doesn’t accomplish those, but mindfully considering the needs and want of future children (even when that means sacrificing “the moment” often does.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Usually I don’t bother with your remarks, but this time you really went off the far end.

Your errors, in no specific order.

1. Love and passion go hand in hand, especially in the young age. When people are young, the passion part is “dominant”; however as people grow old, and their hormones are “drying up”, this changes. A fact from biology: The wild, passionate love produces chemicals in the brain, which are very similar to the effects of cocaine. The quiet love of elderly people produces chemicals which are similar to heroin. To denigrate “passion” is the sign of lack of thinking.
2. You attempted to change the goalposts when you started to talk about “unmarried”, “adulterous” and “threesome” relationships. Typical of those who are unable to answer a direct, specific question, and try to hide it with a transparent attempt to change the subject. Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to mix up fundamentally different categories. “Adultery” is cheating, the other ones are consensual. Maybe this difference is lost on you.
3. You mentioned staying chaste for a few days every month - because they cannot afford children at that time. Not correct. There are methods which preclude the possibility of pregnancy, and still allow the expression of love/lust/passion. And there is no valid rational reason to disregard them.
4. You did not realize that was talking to Rau, who asserted that the “natural moral law” is the result of a rational - also known as “secular” contemplating process, that there is no need to drag in “religious” overtones. I was specifically asking for rational thought processes which would lead to a periodic abstinence. As usual, you did not get it and butted in like the proverbial elephant in the china shop.
5. Whether children are integral part of a marriage or not, depends on the people involved. It is rather haughty to dismiss the love of those people who might not wish to procreate. It is simply none of your business to make judgment calls concerning others - as long (of course) that their choices do not infringe on your freedom. And NOT having children in no way limits your freedom.
6. I am not even going to reply to the “red herring” you introduced in your second post. No one asserted that sex is the one and only foundation upon which a good marriage would rest. There is a wise saying “you should marry your best friend”. As usual, you try to derail the “conversation” into something that is not included. But sex is a very important part, especially at the beginning of a marriage, when people still build the bond, which will (hopefully) last for a lifetime. Or not, as the case may be. A friend of ours married a guy who is younger than she is. When we asked what will she do if the relationship does not last “forever”, she wisely said, that in that case she had a few wonderful years to remember in her old age. So far the marriage holds just fine.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Usually I don’t bother with your remarks, but this time you really went off the far end.

Your errors, in no specific order.

Amazing how quickly you can hammer out a post when you are riled.

1. Love and passion go hand in hand, especially in the young age. When people are young, the passion part is “dominant”; however as people grow old, and their hormones are “drying up”, this changes. A fact from biology: The wild, passionate love produces chemicals in the brain, which are very similar to the effects of cocaine. The quiet love of elderly people produces chemicals which are similar to heroin. To denigrate “passion” is the sign of lack of thinking.

Why bother with “love” when one can just do cocaine or heroin then, if chemistry is the paradigm that matters?

You don’t deal drugs, do you?

I didn’t denigrate passion, I just don’t deify it. It has a place, just not prime of place.

1. You attempted to change the goalposts when you started to talk about “unmarried”, “adulterous” and “threesome” relationships. Typical of those who are unable to answer a direct, specific question, and try to hide it with a transparent attempt to change the subject. Moreover, it is intellectually dishonest to mix up fundamentally different categories. “Adultery” is cheating, the other ones are consensual. Maybe this difference is lost on you.

Just because some act is consensual does not make it legitimate. Two thieves can consent to rob a bank, their consent to do so does not make the act licit.

Your insistence on the “difference” presumes that consent is the only consideration

1. You mentioned staying chaste for a few days every month - because they cannot afford children at that time. Not correct. There are methods which preclude the possibility of pregnancy, and still allow the expression of love/lust/passion. And there is no valid rational reason to disregard them.

The proclivity to use those methods relies on some dubious assumptions - not the least of which being that expression of love/lust/passion takes prime of place as the unitive dimension that supersedes all the others. You beg the question when you insist on “no rational reason.” The rational reason is that the “unitive aspect” is often better fostered by facing challenges, making sacrifices and solving problems together. In short, involving the unity of whole persons - intellect, prudence and other virtues, wisdom, etc., not just indulging passions in making decisions and building a life/family together.

1. You did not realize that was talking to Rau, who asserted that the “natural moral law” is the result of a rational - also known as “secular” contemplating process, that there is no need to drag in “religious” overtones. I was specifically asking for rational thought processes which would lead to a periodic abstinence. As usual, you did not get it and butted in like the proverbial elephant in the china shop.

A forum is a forum. If you want a private conversation PM Rau.

1. Whether children are integral part of a marriage or not, depends on the people involved. It is rather haughty to dismiss the love of those people who might not wish to procreate. It is simply none of your business to make judgment calls concerning others - as long (of course) that their choices do not infringe on your freedom. And NOT having children in no way limits your freedom.

The problem is that those who want to dismiss children as an integral part of marriage are attempting to DISMISS children as an integral part of marriage such that they are pushing to make children completely irrelevant to the definition of what marriage is. Their (and your?) definition amounts to a relationship between two individuals completely devoid of any affiliation to reality, humanity or the good of society.

1. I am not even going to reply to the “red herring” you introduced in your second post. No one asserted that sex is the one and only foundation upon which a good marriage would rest. There is a wise saying “you should marry your best friend”. As usual, you try to derail the “conversation” into something that is not included. But sex is a very important part, especially at the beginning of a marriage, when people still build the bond, which will (hopefully) last for a lifetime. Or not, as the case may be. A friend of ours married a guy who is younger than she is. When we asked what will she do if the relationship does not last “forever”, she wisely said, that in that case she had a few wonderful years to remember in her old age. So far the marriage holds just fine.

So marriage of a “few wonderful years” is all that can be salvaged and held up as what is to be valued in a “good” marriage? Not the person, (discarded and forgotten) but the “wonderful” years? That should give you pause in terms of why our society can’t seem to rise above the penury view it has of marriage and why it proposes a fragile chimera called “relationship” in its place.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. You did not realize that was talking to Rau, who asserted that the “natural moral law” is the result of a rational - also known as “secular” contemplating process, that there is no need to drag in “religious” overtones. I was specifically asking for rational thought processes which would lead to a periodic abstinence. As usual, you did not get it and butted in like the proverbial elephant in the china shop.

Your “talking to Rau” consists of you two talking past each other. I was only trying to help by stirring things up a bit. Adding clarity to the soup, so to speak

In addition, I was trying to spare Rau the burden of your “talking to” him, to lend him assurance that he need not shoulder the burden of being “talked to” by you, all by his lonesome. Alas, it is a heavy one to bear.

Yes, I know…

Originally Posted by Pallas Athene
Usually I don’t bother with your remarks, but this time you really went off the far end.

Somehow, I think THAT time wasn’t really “the deep end,” this most recent one was.

Feel free, however, not “to bother” with my remarks.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Just because some act is consensual does not make it legitimate. Two thieves can consent to rob a bank, their consent to do so does not make the act licit.

Sheesh! I guess, I still overestimated your “rationality”. Did the owner of the bank and all the depositors consent to being robbed? I was hoping that I do not have to add the disclaimer every time; namely that all the affected parties must consent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sheesh! I guess, I still overestimated your “rationality”. Did the owner of the bank and all the depositors consent to being robbed? I was hoping that I do not have to add the disclaimer every time; namely that all the affected parties must consent.

Except the “affected parties” that can’t consent because they have no voice, are willfully ignored or can be safely disregarded, right?

Is the Creator an “affected party?”

You are not supposing that the mere fact that you deny his existence is sufficient to “disaffect” him, are you?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Usually I don’t bother with your remarks, but this time you really went off the far end.

Your errors, in no specific order.

1. I am not even going to reply to the “red herring” you introduced in your second post. No one asserted that sex is the one and only foundation upon which a good marriage would rest. There is a wise saying “you should marry your best friend”. As usual, you try to derail the “conversation” into something that is not included. But sex is a very important part, especially at the beginning of a marriage, when people still build the bond, which will (hopefully) last for a lifetime. Or not, as the case may be. A friend of ours married a guy who is younger than she is. When we asked what will she do if the relationship does not last “forever”, she wisely said, that in that case she had a few wonderful years to remember in her old age. So far the marriage holds just fine.

Let’s be very clear about the “bonds” that hold a marriage together. It isn’t about “hope,” or “chance,” it is about the undaunted willingness of the couple to be together through thick and thin. My comment wasn’t a “red herring” except insofar as it is meant to counter your insistence that passion is “the dominant part.” It isn’t.

As a counter example to your “married a guy younger than she is,” I can give you the story of a “passionate” young couple; when, upon hearing the news that he had developed primary-progressive multiple sclerosis, her “passion” quickly dried up and she, just as quickly, found another fellow who was more capable of fulfilling her passionate needs. He moved back with his mother and the two of them are looking after each other as she ages and he continues to deteriorate.

Another counter example, much closer to home: after thirty-five years of marriage, this couple was in a severe accident that left him paralyzed from the neck down. At sixty-seven, this woman could have (after raising six children together) decided to place her husband in a care facility and made it “easy” on herself. No, instead she said I will care for him at home. She did, faithfully, for another eleven years. That was ten years ago. She is now in her late eighties, suffering with arthritis and gout, but doesn’t regret a moment of the time she loved and cared for her husband. She doesn’t just have a “few wonderful years” to look back on in her old age, she has her integrity, love and faithfulness intact.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here is sufficient evidence for the natural moral law…

youtu.be/Lgcd6jvsCFs

 

[icamhif]

Does Natural Moral Law teach that by reason alone, independent of divine revelation (including the Church and the Scriptures), any rational man can discern that recreational sex, masturbation, and contraception are absolutely, morally wrong?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Does Natural Moral Law teach that by reason alone, independent of divine revelation (including the Church and the Scriptures), any rational man can discern that recreational sex, masturbation, and contraception are absolutely, morally wrong?

That is the question!

There is only one, almost-universal principle, which is the negative form of the golden rule: “do NOT do unto others what you do NOT want them to do unto you”. And this rule is almost universal because it creates an environment where everyone is allowed to prosper to their best ability. Yet, some societies did not subscribe even to this simple, and “obvious” rule. Obvious to us, of course, since it is proven by game theory, which was unavailable to the simple societies of the biblical times.

 

[Bradski]

Does Natural Moral Law teach that by reason alone, independent of divine revelation (including the Church and the Scriptures), any rational man can discern that recreational sex, masturbation, and contraception are absolutely, morally wrong?

If someone tells you that something is wrong, then (I’d hope) your first reaction would be to ask why. If the answers are reasonable, then you may be convinced. If the answer is simply: ‘It is written’ then unless you put some importance into what is written, then I’d expect you to be unconvinced.

I can think of reasons why it might be advisable not to have recreational sex (danger of disease) or reasons why it might be immoral (infidelity) but it’s only in a religious context can you say that it’s wrong in itself.

As to the other two? Morally wrong only within a religious context.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does Natural Moral Law teach that by reason alone, independent of divine revelation (including the Church and the Scriptures), any rational man can discern that recreational sex, masturbation, and contraception are absolutely, morally wrong?

I would suggest that natural moral law was conceived and well-understood by early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, so it is clear that the idea of natural moral law does not depend upon the Church and Scriptures, although it does depend upon purposeful creation (final causation) and the existence of God. If God does not exist, then anything is permissible precisely because there is no inherent purpose to existence and moral law would be ungrounded.

Following the thought of Aristotle, for one, it is possible to discern that recreational sex, masturbation and contraception are morally wrong because of what these behaviours do to the individual souls and virtues of those who engage in them. The point being that to be truly happy requires a right ordering of the powers/virtues of the human soul according to its nature as rational animal/moral being. That which disorders the soul by reducing the proper ordering of reason over passions will bring about, eventually, a corrupted being - one which has lost the capacity to maintain proper internal order.

I would further suggest that the “need” to engage in recreational sex or mastturbation is an indicator of a deeply troubled and unhappy soul. There wouldn’t exist such a pressing “need” to engage in an otherwise purposeless and meaningless activity if the internal virtues/powers of the individual were properly ordered.

I expect flack on this, but that’s fine. I get that calling into question the deeply flawed presumptions of modern western societies will cause a reactive response, which is, itself, evidence that individuals who subscribe to the principles of modern western culture know, deep down, that something is amiss within them.

 

[icamhif]

I would suggest that natural moral law was conceived and well-understood by early Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, so it is clear that the idea of natural moral law does not depend upon the Church and Scriptures, although it does depend upon purposeful creation (final causation) and the existence of God.

But did they all conclude that recreational sex is inherently wrong?

If God does not exist, then anything is permissible precisely because there is no inherent purpose to existence and moral law would be ungrounded.

I don’t see how that follows. When I was agnostic, I had every reason to believe that I shouldn’t do to others what I would not want done to myself. If I do bad things to other people, then chances are that they will do bad things to me.

Following the thought of Aristotle, for one, it is possible to discern that recreational sex, masturbation and contraception are morally wrong because of what these behaviours do to the individual souls and virtues of those who engage in them. The point being that to be truly happy requires a right ordering of the powers/virtues of the human soul according to its nature as rational animal/moral being. That which disorders the soul by reducing the proper ordering of reason over passions will bring about, eventually, a corrupted being - one which has lost the capacity to maintain proper internal order.

Can you quote me where Aristotle made such reasoning?

I would further suggest that the “need” to engage in recreational sex or mastturbation is an indicator of a deeply troubled and unhappy soul. There wouldn’t exist such a pressing “need” to engage in an otherwise purposeless and meaningless activity if the internal virtues/powers of the individual were properly ordered.

I’m inclined to agree, though that may just be because I’m already a Christian.

 

[icamhif]

That is the question!

There is only one, almost-universal principle, which is the negative form of the golden rule: “do NOT do unto others what you do NOT want them to do unto you”. And this rule is almost universal because it creates an environment where everyone is allowed to prosper to their best ability. Yet, some societies did not subscribe even to this simple, and “obvious” rule. Obvious to us, of course, since it is proven by game theory, which was unavailable to the simple societies of the biblical times.

What societies do not follow the Silver Rule? I don’t see how any society can last without at least implicitly following it.

As an aside, I’m interested in knowing whether any of the following ancient societies forbidded recreational sex, masturbation, and/or contraception:

1. Mesopotamia
2. Egypt
3. Greek
4. Roman Empire
5. Ancient China
6. Feudal Japan
7. Persian Empire
8. Assyrian Empire
9. Native American tribes
10. Oceanic Tribes

 

[icamhif]

If someone tells you that something is wrong, then (I’d hope) your first reaction would be to ask why. If the answers are reasonable, then you may be convinced. If the answer is simply: ‘It is written’ then unless you put some importance into what is written, then I’d expect you to be unconvinced.

I can think of reasons why it might be advisable not to have recreational sex (danger of disease) or reasons why it might be immoral (infidelity) but it’s only in a religious context can you say that it’s wrong in itself.

As to the other two? Morally wrong only within a religious context.

I’m inclined to agree. I don’t think that necessarily compromises Catholic doctrine, though, for the Catechism states the following:

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.

So basically, it is possible that Natural Moral Law exists, but because of Original Sin, it is not clear or obvious to everyone. Of course, any non-Christian would probably dismiss that as ad-hoc reasoning, but the point remains that the Catholic doctrine may still be internally consistent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is the question!

There is only one, almost-universal principle, which is the negative form of the golden rule: “do NOT do unto others what you do NOT want them to do unto you”. And this rule is almost universal because it creates an environment where everyone is allowed to prosper to their best ability. Yet, some societies did not subscribe even to this simple, and “obvious” rule. Obvious to us, of course, since it is proven by game theory, which was unavailable to the simple societies of the biblical times.

We could get into a deeper discussion on this, but the problem with “the negative form of the golden rule” is that it is all form and no substance. It assumes that “everyone” will want what is “good” done to them and that “everyone” will have a basically similar conception of the good - thus presupposing some kind of natural order or innate goodness and worth of each person.

What if the individuals involved are immoral, thrill seekers who relish the thought of kill-or-be-killed? They positively want others to try to do to them what they want to do to others - that is precisely the principle that guides their inner life. Their idea of “prosper” is to rape, pillage and loot; and the idea of doing so to prove being best at it simply enhances the thrill.

So you see, you are merely presuming natural moral law and that “everyone” obeys it innately. Well, if it isn’t ordained by or grounded in the ultimate purpose of the universe, then convincing the savage barbarian that he ought NOT do bad things to others even when he positively wants to meet the challenge of others trying to do BAD things to him would appear to be a futile exercise, because there is no ultimate reason why your version of things that others should not do to you should be endorsed by him over his own views on the matter.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t see how that follows. When I was agnostic, I had every reason to believe that I shouldn’t do to others what I would not want done to myself. If I do bad things to other people, then chances are that they will do bad things to me.

Yes, but self-interest does not equate to morality. It isn’t as if you thought that bad things shouldn’t be done BECAUSE they are bad in a moral sense, just that the end results for you wouldn’t be what you wanted for yourself.

That is just pragmatism, not morality.

Merely thinking that the reason not to do bad things to others might lead them to do bad things to you does not amount to a universal principle because if you knew you could get away with doing bad things to others and were certain they could not get you back, your “every reason” to do good things dissolves and you have every reason to do bad things.

That, however, isn’t morality in the sense of having obligations to do good things because they are good in principle and because the ends are determinably good irregardless of whether you will personally benefit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Can you quote me where Aristotle made such reasoning?

Basically all of Nichomachean Ethics, but specifically stated in Book 1, parts 7 and 8, here:

classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

 

[icamhif]

Yes, but self-interest does not equate to morality. It isn’t as if you thought that bad things shouldn’t be done BECAUSE they are bad in a moral sense, just that the end results for you wouldn’t be what you wanted for yourself.

That is just pragmatism, not morality.

Merely thinking that the reason not to do bad things to others might lead them to do bad things to you does not amount to a universal principle because if you knew you could get away with doing bad things to others and were certain they could not get you back, your “every reason” to do good things dissolves and you have every reason to do bad things.

That, however, isn’t morality in the sense of having obligations to do good things because they are good in principle and because the ends are determinably good irregardless of whether you will personally benefit.

So which is it? That we know moral law exists because it is self-evident through our lives and reasons, or that there is no grounds for knowing the existence of moral law without presupposing a theistic worldview? How can they both be true?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So which is it? That we know moral law exists because it is self-evident through our lives, or that there is no grounds for knowing the existence of moral law without presupposing a theistic worldview? How can they both be true?

Getting back to Aristotle, “we” would only know the natural law exists if we are functioning moral agents. A properly ordered human being with a right working faculty of reason will

1. view the moral law as self-evident because properly ordered faculties recognize the “good.”
2. be capable of reasoning from the proper and ordered recognition of “the good” to making right decisions and acting properly.

Recall that Aristotle had a “theistic world view” and so did/do most philosophers who accept natural law theory precisely because it is grounded in teleology or final ends. Natural moral law requires the Aristotelian notion of final causes. That purpose exists in “nature” is as self-evident as gravity. Ergo things “tend toward” their final end or purpose, the recognition of which - as human moral agents - forms the ground for natural moral law.

The nature of what a human being is cannot be understood without an understanding of the ends to which human beings are properly ordered. Here, understanding of Aristotle’s four causes would be helpful.