What the heck is this "natural law"?

[Luvya]

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.

Well, that is interesting. If the secular meaning is different from what the Church teaches, then we are in serious trouble. It means that we cannot even agree on the basis of the conversation. And as such, the conversation is futile.

 

[mardukm]

…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?

Because it is the supernatural that gave rise to the natural. It seems the discussion must necessarily devolve to a discussion on the existence of God. If you want to discuss that, fine. But if you want to discuss with Catholics the Church’s teaching on Natural Law, then you must approach it with our premises in order to have a meaningful discussion.

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.

What you neglect is that the Church teaches that Reason is itself moved by God. So there is no contradiction between what you quote above, and what you quoted previously.

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”.

What “normal” behaviors are you talking about? Stealing? Rape? Murder? Are you arguing that there should be no laws against these because they are “natural”?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Well, that is interesting. If the secular meaning is different from what the Church teaches, then we are in serious trouble. It means that we cannot even agree on the basis of the conversation. And as such, the conversation is futile.

That is possible. But it doesn’t seem as though you have yet presented exactly what your purpose for discussion is. Your previous post is bit convoluted, IMO. Can you perhaps express more concisely what you are trying to prove or discuss? Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[John21652]

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 does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe. According to Natural Law moral theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world they live in. Natural Law moral propositions have objective standing in the sense that such propositions are the bearers of objective truth-value; that is, moral propositions can be objectively true or false. Natural Law moral theory is committed only to the objectivity of moral norms. From these objective moral norms, ‘ought’ statements about human behaviour are then made. Thus, for example, the Natural Law tells us everyone has the right to life. From that we deduce that we ought not to kill.

 

[1ke]

Both nature and super-nature come from God. All things have their origin in God. Super-nature pertains to those things above the natural order.

newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm

 

[Windfish]

Philosophy is speculation. Usually empty speculation.

No, your posts are 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.

Wow.

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.

After the things you have written on this forum, you need to be stopped before you lower the IQ points of other posters. Literally everything you have posted on this forum is bad.

 

[jomoco]

The Mormons have a saying that “The natural man is an enemy of God.”

I have always liked that saying’s simplicity in that God’s absence in our lives leaves us spiritually destitute and subject to man’s flawed rule, and hence confusion and death.

So man’s obviously flawed rule over us can be reasonably equated to natural law in my opinion.

But faith and devout belief in a loving Christian God’s promise that natural man can be overcome and transcended some day through Jesus Christ is the basic premise that we Christians take comfort in. The belief that there is far more to life than man’s pathetic and ultimately futile “natural law.”

God’s promise that mankind can be tangibly changed someday into a more perfect and Godly eternal state of being is what differentiates those who believe in natural manly law that rules the world today, from those who believe in Christ’s divine Godly law, that all good Christian’s aspire to. Something far better than man’s pathetic, vain, greedy current state of oh so flawed existence in our world today all around us, on every TV channel, every computer.

My free will choice and faith, is in Christ overcoming man’s natural law, as promised by our loving God so long ago. All glory is His and His alone.

jomoco

 

[michelleds]

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”.

I believe the second paragraph can be summed up as: You said A, I don’t like A, therefore, A is not rational.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Natural law is teleological.

That is, it refers to human actions that fit the purpose for which they were designed.

The eye is suitable for seeing, not being blind to all that it can see. The ears are suited to hearing, not being deaf. The hand is suited to grasping and manipulating, not for keeping in your pockets all the livelong day. The leg is suited to walking, not crawling. The back is suited to keeping us erect, not bent over. The buttock is suited to sitting and relieving ourselves of waste products, not being filled with extraneous objects. The penis is suited to urinating and making babies, not forced ramming up the anal canal.

The brain was designed to discover truth, not lies, except insofar as discovering a lie reveals to us the truth.

Got the picture?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.