What the heck is this "natural law"?

[Luvya]

Please give a rigorous definition first. We can continue from there.

(If possible, please refrain from repeating the nonsense that it is “inscribed unto the man’s heart”. Empty phrases like that tend to wear thin after thousands of repetitions.)

 

[Windfish]

Go read a book on it. It has been the philosophy of the world for pretty much the last several thousand years - the United States constitution and law in the western world is based on natural law. Natural rights are grounded in natural law. Try Feser’s “Aquinas” as a start. Also a good primer on proofs for the existence of God. Might wanna get a logic textbook, though, so that you actually understand what you read and not make the same mistakes with the other books that you have read.

 

[NewsTheMan]

It is the way in which the universe works on a metaphysical level which gives us objective truth about everything from morality and ethics to the nature and existence of God.

Up until nominalism/dualism and the “Englightenment” it was Western Philosophy.

 

[Windfish]

luvya is an arrogant no-nothing bigot. Don’t humor luvya.

 

[Luvya]

Go read a book on it. It has been the philosophy of the world for pretty much the last several thousand years - the United States constitution and law in the western world is based on natural law.

Philosophy is speculation. Usually empty speculation.

Natural rights are grounded in natural law.

And there are no “natural” rights either. A charging lion will not respect your “right to live”. Nor does an Earthquake. A “right” which cannot be enforced is a farce.

luvya is an arrogant no-nothing bigot. Don’t humor luvya.

If only you would follow you own advice. I sure would not miss your posts. I wonder if you view yourself as a good, charitable, kind Catholic. Look into the mirror and be ashamed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please give a rigorous definition first. We can continue from there.

(If possible, please refrain from repeating the nonsense that it is “inscribed unto the man’s heart”. Empty phrases like that tend to wear thin after thousands of repetitions.)

Natural Law refers to those rules of conduct that do not depend on revelation. These are rules that any successful society tends to adopt. Obviously there are some differences between societies. But there is a large body of rules and understanding about morality that tend to be recognized by most. That is what is meant by Natural Law.

 

[Luvya]

It is the way in which the universe works on a metaphysical level which gives us objective truth about everything from morality and ethics to the nature and existence of God.

That is not much of a definition. Objective “truth” about what? Morality and ethics are contingent upon what one wants to achieve. Of course God’s existence cannot be demonstarted by reason alone (the catecism notwithstanding) because if it could be, then there would be no need for faith. And God’s “nature” is inaccessible to us.

So, I will wait for someone else, who can at the very least define what “natural law” is supposed to be.

 

[Luvya]

Natural Law refers to those rules of conduct that do not depend on revelation. These are rules that any successful society tends to adopt. Obviously there are some differences between societies. But there is a large body of rules and understanding about morality that tend to be recognized by most. That is what is meant by Natural Law.

Not bad as a starting point. I would say that the basic principles which pretty much all societies accepted throughout the ages.

There are two such principles, the two variants of the golden rule. Nothing else.

 

[mardukm]

Natural Law refers to those rules of conduct that do not depend on revelation.

That’s not entirely accurate.

Natural Law refers to more than “rules of conduct.”

Also, Natural Law has a very intimate relationship to revelation, because Natural Law is given to us by God Himself.

It would be more correct to say that Natural Law is that portion of the revelation of God that can be acquired through Reason — though for Catholics, it must always be acknowledged that it is never through Reason alone.

Aside from Natural Law, there is also the revelation of God that can only be acquired through supernatural means.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Luvya]

Also, Natural Law has a very intimate relationship to revelation, because Natural Law is given to us by God Himself.

If it is “given” by God, then it is not “natural” any more. Something that is “natrual” has nothing to do with “supernatural”.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not entirely accurate.

Natural Law refers to more than “rules of conduct.”

Also, Natural Law has a very intimate relationship to revelation, because Natural Law is given to us by God Himself.

It would be more correct to say that Natural Law is that portion of the revelation of God that can be acquired through Reason — though for Catholics, it must always be acknowledged that it is never through Reason alone.

No, Natural Law is accessible through reason alone. That is how remote isolated primitive societies who have never heard of Christ or the Church can still acquire a sense of Natural Law. And as for God giving us Natural Law, that must be understood in the sense of God’s creating us and our world in such a way that Natural Law is realized without explicit revelation. Of course I don’t mean to downplay the role of revelation. There is a lot more to following God’s laws than just Natural Law. Revelation through the Church is also essential. And there are some areas of overlap between Natural Law and revelation where revelation can refine Natural Law. For example, all societies know that it is wrong to kill. So that can be considered Natural Law. But not all societies interpret that law the same, and Jesus gave us some revelation that refines this natural law: “Your have heard it said ‘You shall not kill’. But I say…”

So rather than downplay revelation, I would rather restrict the definition of Natural Law and downplay that. Let’s not muddy the waters with fuzzy concepts.

 

[NewsTheMan]

That is not much of a definition. Objective “truth” about what? Morality and ethics are contingent upon what one wants to achieve. Of course God’s existence cannot be demonstarted by reason alone (the catecism notwithstanding) because if it could be, then there would be no need for faith. And God’s “nature” is inaccessible to us.

So, I will wait for someone else, who can at the very least define what “natural law” is supposed to be.

Only the thirsty will drink.

You refuse to read a book or engage in philosophy yet you want the answers to philosophy that has volumes written on it.

God’s existence can be proven and demonstrated by reason alone.

Your definition of faith is inadequate because we still would need faith.

God is not ineffable.

I will not be participating in this thread. You’re not thirsty for truth, you’re thirsty for a battle because you grounded an axe. Have fun. I have 4 years of philosophy behind my back and another 2 to go in formal training and education; but it seems you know more than I.

 

[1ke]

I suggest the book 50 Questions on The Natural Law by Charles E Rice

An article you can read:

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

 

[Quarles47]

(If possible, please refrain from repeating the nonsense that it is “inscribed unto the man’s heart”. Empty phrases like that tend to wear thin after thousands of repetitions.)

Boy, with an opening like that, where can you go from there.

 

[JPXavier]

Philosophy is speculation. Usually empty speculation.

And there are no “natural” rights either. A charging lion will not respect your “right to live”. Nor does an Earthquake. A “right” which cannot be enforced is a farce.

If only you would follow you own advice. I sure would not miss your posts. I wonder if you view yourself as a good, charitable, kind Catholic. Look into the mirror and be ashamed.

Good Morning Luvya,

I would say that philosophy is not empty speculation. Philosophy allows for us as moral, intelligent beings to make concrete distinctions between good and evil. Moreover, it allows us to recognize the distinction between deciding and choosing. Wherein, we are able to choose good over evil rather than making a computational decision, which is inherently amoral, notwithstanding adherents to utilitarian philosophy.

Natural Law is separate from what we understand to be the “Laws of Nature.” Natural Law is reserved for human beings utilizing their right reason to determine the good.

Best Regards,

JPX

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, Natural Law is accessible through reason alone. That is how remote isolated primitive societies who have never heard of Christ or the Church can still acquire a sense of Natural Law. And as for God giving us Natural Law, that must be understood in the sense of God’s creating us and our world in such a way that Natural Law is realized without explicit revelation. Of course I don’t mean to downplay the role of revelation. There is a lot more to following God’s laws than just Natural Law. Revelation through the Church is also essential. And there are some areas of overlap between Natural Law and revelation where revelation can refine Natural Law. For example, all societies know that it is wrong to kill. So that can be considered Natural Law. But not all societies interpret that law the same, and Jesus gave us some revelation that refines this natural law: “You have heard it said ‘You shall not kill’. But I say…”

So rather than downplay revelation, I would rather restrict the definition of Natural Law and downplay that. Let’s not muddy the waters with fuzzy concepts.

 

[Luvya]

You refuse to read a book or engage in philosophy yet you want the answers to philosophy that has volumes written on it.

Don’t speculate. I read the books, engaged in countless conversations.

God’s existence can be proven and demonstrated by reason alone.

The catecism says so. But somehow it leaves out the proof. I wonder why? I have seen all the attempted “proofs” many times. They are all full of unsupported assumptions, incorrect and faulty generalizations, and neat little logical errors, spiced with fallacies.

God is not ineffable.

And yet it is the final argument about the problem of evil: “we cannot know why God does or does not do something, because his ways are inscrutable”. All I have to do is present a problem with a slightly different wording, and you guys will argue the exact opposite of what you argued before.

You’re not thirsty for truth, you’re thirsty for a battle because you grounded an axe.

I like these off-the-wall assessments. You think you know my intentions. But you are wrong. I am interested in your opinion. That is all.

 

[mardukm]

If it is “given” by God, then it is not “natural” any more. Something that is “natrual” has nothing to do with “supernatural”.

What you are presenting is the secular understanding of Natural Law. I’m assuming the OP is asking what the Church’s teaching on it is. If so, it is different from the secular understanding you have presented above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Luvya]

I suggest the book 50 Questions on The Natural Law by Charles E Rice

An article you can read:

newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

Ok, I did. Here is the start:

…the natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us.
This is a purely religious concept. How can something be called “natural”, when it is prescribed by the supernatural?

Later it says:

Theoretically speaking, man is capable of acquiring a full kowledge of the moral law, which is, as we have seen, nothing but the dictates of reason properly exercised.
Now this would be a good starting definition (but not sufficient without further clarification), but it is contradictory to the other definition. Sure, we all can arrive (using pure reason) at the concepts of “golden rules”. These two rules are sufficient for humans to live together in peace, respecting each other and helping each other when the need arises. That is all what is needed.

But the Christian assumption does not stop here. Christians wish to extend this “natural law” to incorporate all sorts of normal, natural and healthy human behaviors by declaring them contradictory to some “commandments”. Mind you, we have a few threads in progress, in which the believers are asked to provide fully rational, secular arguments against some of these, and they fail miserably. No one is able to present a fully rational, secular argument against those sexual behaviors, which are forbidden by the Catholic Church. (These include: sex outside the marriage, homosexual love, masturbation, artificial birth control, sex without being “open” to procreation, etc… etc…) And yet, the Church maintains that these behaviors are contrary to “natural law”.

Sorry, bro, it simply will not wash. If you cannot substantiate that these behaviors are “irrational”, you have only one fall-back position, that God prohibited them. But in that case (even if you are correct, which is questionable) it becomes a religious argument, and not a rational, secular one.

 

[mardukm]

No, Natural Law is accessible through reason alone.

That is the secular understanding of Natural Law.

That is how remote isolated primitive societies who have never heard of Christ or the Church can still acquire a sense of Natural Law. And as for God giving us Natural Law, that must be understood in the sense of God’s creating us and our world in such a way that Natural Law is realized without explicit revelation. Of course I don’t mean to downplay the role of revelation. There is a lot more to following God’s laws than just Natural Law. Revelation through the Church is also essential. And there are some areas of overlap between Natural Law and revelation where revelation can refine Natural Law. For example, all societies know that it is wrong to kill. So that can be considered Natural Law. But not all societies interpret that law the same, and Jesus gave us some revelation that refines this natural law: “Your have heard it said ‘You shall not kill’. But I say…”

So rather than downplay revelation, I would rather restrict the definition of Natural Law and downplay that. Let’s not muddy the waters with fuzzy concepts.

What you are muddying, perhaps unintentionally, is the secular definition of Natural Law and the Church’s teaching on Natural Law. Please don’t confuse the two.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, who presents the orthodox Catholic teaching on the matter, Natural Law is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation in the eternal law.”

Blessings,
Marduk