Why isn't Natural Law found in nature?

[dostoyevskyfan]

Here is Nietzsche’s critique of the Stoics from Beyond Good and Evil:

“You want to live according to nature? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative live according to nature meant at the bottom the same thing as live according to life - how could you not do that?”

Anyone who takes a good look at nature and the creatures who inhabit it, will see just how horrible it is. The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species. How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

When did human beings invent the arrogant and idiotic concept of Natural Law?

 

[tonyrey]

Here is Nietzsche’s critique of the Stoics from Beyond Good and Evil:

“You want to live according to nature? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative live according to nature meant at the bottom the same thing as live according to life - how could you not do that?”

Anyone who takes a good look at nature and the creatures who inhabit it, will see just how horrible it is. The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species. How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

When did human beings invent the arrogant and idiotic concept of Natural Law?

The concept of Natural Law is neither arrogant nor idiotic if it is rightly understood. It refers to human nature and means that the power of reason enables us to understand how we should respect and treat others if we wish to live with them in peace and harmony. Do you prefer Nietzsche’s views - which were adopted by the Nazis - to those of Christianity?

 

[JerryS]

God gives you the freedom to follow what guides you choose, even Nietzsche. Beware that path, though. I don’t seem to remember things ending very happily for dear Friedrich.

Without God working behind the veil for good, there is no good or evil or purpose. There is only horror and despair and savage survival. There’s lots of evidence of brokenness in the natural world. It doesn’t take divine revelation to tell us that there’s evil in us. What’s not obvious is that the world was created good, and that there’s a difference between good and evil, and that there’s purpose in our lives beyond self interest (enlightened or otherwise).

For that, we need God to help us see the underlying goodness, and hope for better than we know, and strive to achieve God’s good purpose. And God has done this. You don’t have to believe it, of course, but don’t expect happiness and contentment down that path.

 

[Hubriss]

I applaud your post sir. The claimed Natural Law is merely God’s Law. It’s a deceptive term that actually can not be derived from nature, but is instead derived from religion, specifically Catholicism.

To Tonyrey: Hitler actually did believe in a natural law. Though this is really an inconsequential point.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature’s rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.

Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature’s restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, thedormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.

Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks.

This is only too natural.

Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life." Ch. 11. Mein Kampf

He also believed in some supernatural deity.

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” p 60. Mein Kampf

There are many instances like these in Mein Kampf.

 

[Betterave]

Here is Nietzsche’s critique of the Stoics from Beyond Good and Evil:

“You want to live according to nature? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative live according to nature meant at the bottom the same thing as live according to life - how could you not do that?”

Anyone who takes a good look at nature and the creatures who inhabit it, will see just how horrible it is. The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species. How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

When did human beings invent the arrogant and idiotic concept of Natural Law?

The notion that Nietzsche is actually criticizing the Stoics (as opposed to caricaturing the Stoics) seems highly implausible to me. Do you actually accept that what Nietzsche has to say here in any way deals with real natural law theory?

Nietzsche’s own ethical ideal - amor fati, affirm everything - is actually pretty close to the Stoic view, as far as I understand.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

The concept of Natural Law is neither arrogant nor idiotic if it is rightly understood. It refers to human nature and means that the power of reason enables us to understand how we should respect and treat others if we wish to live with them in peace and harmony. Do you prefer Nietzsche’s views - which were adopted by the Nazis - to those of Christianity?

I am first and foremost, a Catholic with leanings toward ultra-conservative views. Let’s just get that out of the way. I believe everything the church teaches, but I reserve the right to question it and grow intellectually. If you want to challenge my opinion and have good evidence to the contrary, I will listen and possibly retract my statements. I wanted to create a thread that promotes philosophical discussion, ideally without mention of Hitler and the Nazis, lol. Why is it that hitler always sneaks his way into intellectual debate? I beg everyone to abide by godwin’s law, for this thread at least.

Since you did bring up hitler, i am obligated to comment against my own reservations. you present a false dichotomy between nietzsche’s views and catholic christianity, as if some sort of synthesis, however unlikely, were impossible. Second, the nazis used all forms of propaganda to brainwash the public with the ultimate goal of rewriting history. Nietzsche was not a nazi, and openly denounced anti-semitism. For the record, the nazis also used martin luther’s “on the jews and their lies” for propaganda purposes. I don’t hold that lutherans are nazis (at least i don’t tell them that). I also own a copy of mein kampf. In it hitler admits that he used any means available to win the favor of the people. This is why he used religious rhetoric in his speeches. It wasn’t necessarily because he was religious; merely a form of political manipulation to advance a national socialist agenda. Please no more mention of him. Hitler is a beast that just won’t die.

I suppose my “thesis” for this thread is that the concept of “natural law” isn’t natural. Not only is it not natural, but it also not catholic. It has pagan origins from Aristotle and the stoics. I see it as intellectual cargo smuggled in via the airplane of aquinas. This is in fact not uncommon in promulgation of christianity. The date of we celebrate christmas is actually a pagan holiday, the winter solstice. Many of our “christmas” traditions including cutting down trees, gifts, the yule log, etc…are pagan traditions that were superimposed upon christianity to make for a smoother transition from pagan culture to a culture of christianity. i feel that in a similar way, the idea of natural law has infiltrated catholicism. It is indisputable that pagan ideas influenced the church fathers. anyone who has read origen, augustine, or aquinas will agree (i personally have not read aquinas, hence this thread). please correct me if i am wrong and provide counter arguments. i will listen.

Lastly, if you hold the position that all life did not evolve from single celled organisms than this thread is not for you. Natural selection is cruel and unmerciful. If you accept the evidence for evolutionary theory, as I do, you will admit that there was a point when our ancestors were indistinguishable from the base beasts. I am not arguing against the words of St.Paul who said basically, that non-christians will be judged according to their conscience. His words were true at the time that he said them, but this contention was not always true (that our animal ancestors had the law of God written on their hearts). I am not debating the fact that we HAVE a conscience. Only that there was a** point in time when human beings were not morally conscious or conscious of our conscience**. Therefore, at the time when the cruel process of natural selection forced on us a consciousness that folded in upon itself and we became conscious of consciousness, it was necessary, for the survival of our species, to invent “morality” that revolved around self-preservation.

plz excuse spelling and punctuation…speed typing…

 

[diggerdomer]

Here is Nietzsche’s critique of the Stoics from Beyond Good and Evil:

“You want to live according to nature? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative live according to nature meant at the bottom the same thing as live according to life - how could you not do that?”

Anyone who takes a good look at nature and the creatures who inhabit it, will see just how horrible it is. The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species. How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

When did human beings invent the arrogant and idiotic concept of Natural Law?

Human beings did not invent it. Christians consider it part of God’s creation. Read Paul’s letter to the Romans.

 

[rvilbig]

Here is Nietzsche’s critique of the Stoics from Beyond Good and Evil:

“You want to live according to nature? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative live according to nature meant at the bottom the same thing as live according to life - how could you not do that?”

Anyone who takes a good look at nature and the creatures who inhabit it, will see just how horrible it is. The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species. How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

When did human beings invent the arrogant and idiotic concept of Natural Law?

The natural law is seen in nature. A popular image for Christ in the early Church was the pie pellicane, the tender pelican, who offers her own flesh for her children.

Some counter-interpretations of your examples can be found in Saint Francis de Sales book: Introduction to the Devout Life:

1. Murder: “Spiders do no kill bees but spoil and corrupt their honey and tangle honeycombs with their webs so that the bees cannot do their work. This must be understood of times when the spiders stay among them. In like manner, venial sins do not kill the soul but spoil its devotion and so entangle its powers in bad habits and inclinations that it can no longer exert the prompt charity that constitutes devotion” (page 76).
2. Sexual Promiscuity: “A lioness that has been with a leopard hasten to wash herself and get rid of the stench the meeting has left with her lest her mate be offended and angered. So too a soul that has consented to sin must have horror of itself and be washed clean as soon as possible out of the respect it must have for the eyes of God’s Divine Majesty who sees it.”(page 111).

Moreover, Christ is our supreme example of the new law, while the natural world is full of imperfect conflicts (reflective of the fall).

Archbishop Fulton Sheen had some nice thoughts on this, in the Electronic Christian: “There are …] only two possible theories concerning the nature and dignity of man: one is that life is a push from below, and the other that it is a gift from above. According to the first, man is supposed to act like a beast because he came from one; according to the second, he is expected to act like God because he is made in His own image and likeness …The man in the tree looks forward to a progeny of the children of animals, and the Man on the Tree looks forward to a progeny of the children of God … When the man in the tree dies, not even the leaves chant a requiem. When the Man on the Tree dies, even the earth yawns and gives up its dead, for it is the tree that matters now as in the beginning when man balanced a fruit against a garden … The man in the tree is the beast swinging from its tail in the selfish joy of its bestiality. The Man on the Tree is Christ Jesus in the ecstatic beatification of His redemption” (Electronic Christian, Section on Evolution)

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Areopagite]

I suppose my “thesis” for this thread is that the concept of “natural law” isn’t natural. Not only is it not natural, but it also not catholic. It has pagan origins from Aristotle and the stoics.

Not just Aristotle and the Stoics, but any pagan, Jew, Catholic, heretic or whatever that believed in the object existence of “justice.”

That is, if you believe that one can know that some actions are right and some are wrong other than simply what a government legislates, then you automatically believe in natural law, rather than simply human/conventional/instituted law. Most people believe in natural law, therefore. Most atheists would believe in natural law. Most Catholics would believe that one can know that certain actions are just or unjust without the aid of revelation. So, it is curious why so many people condemn the idea of natural law.

I see it as intellectual cargo smuggled in via the airplane of aquinas. This is in fact not uncommon in promulgation of christianity. The date of we celebrate christmas is actually a pagan holiday, the winter solstice. Many of our “christmas” traditions including cutting down trees, gifts, the yule log, etc…are pagan traditions that were superimposed upon christianity to make for a smoother transition from pagan culture to a culture of christianity. i feel that in a similar way, the idea of natural law has infiltrated catholicism. It is indisputable that pagan ideas influenced the church fathers. anyone who has read origen, augustine, or aquinas will agree (i personally have not read aquinas, hence this thread). please correct me if i am wrong and provide counter arguments. i will listen.

Depending on how you define “Catholic”, the idea of natural justice can indeed be called Catholic. If the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, then all truth, even those concepts not unique to revelation, is included under Catholicism. Bread and wine, for example, do not have Catholic origins, but we should not be ashamed at Mass.

Now, are you suggesting these originally pagan things “infiltrating” Catholicism is a bad thing? Many Protestants I know don’t like that idea. They wish that Christianity was completely separate from paganism. But really, Christianity is (rather loosely speaking) paganism plus divine revelation … or you could say humanity plus divinity … or you could even say, the Incarnation. Taking the paganism out of Christianity is taking the humanity out of Christ. Pagans, of course, were sinful, just like humanity is sinful. But Christ had a perfect humanity, just like the Church has a perfected paganism.

That’s my opinion at least. And not just mine.

I applaud your post sir. The claimed Natural Law is merely God’s Law. It’s a deceptive term that actually can not be derived from nature, but is instead derived from religion, specifically Catholicism.

Agnostics and atheists, I expect you above all to get behind the notion of natural law if, in fact, you believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, besides what institutions say.

It really seems like there are two ways of thinking that leads to a rejection of natural law: 1) Nihilism, where there is no good and evil (something that Niezsche represents), and 2) Religious fundamentalism, where all law is only really known through divine revelation.

The moderate and well-balanced view is one that includes natural law.

 

[Areopagite]

The church teaches that the animals are “morally neutral” and yet we see murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, rapes, etc…commonplace among them.

For an act to be moral or immoral, it has to be performed by a creature with a will. Animals don’t have wills. Hence, no matter what they do, they are morally neutral.

If we go back further in the evolution of man, we see all of the above things very common in the beginning development of our species.

Not sure I know what you’re talking about here. The only records we have during caveman times are cave paintings. As far as I’ve perused them, I don’t see a lot of murder, sexual promiscuity, homosexual acts, abortions, and rapes.

How will Paul’s words about those who do not have the gospel (God wrote the law on their hearts) will be judged according to their conscience apply to cavemen, our less intelligent natural origins?

It hasn’t been proved that the cavemen were naturally less intelligent. But in any case, for those of less intelligence, like infants, if they do not have the capacity to understand justice and injustice, then they cannot commit mortal sins, and so they will not go to hell if they die in such a state. Whether they go to heaven or limbo (if unbaptized) is another question (which is currently being addressed on another thread).

Therefore, at the time when the cruel process of natural selection forced on us a consciousness that folded in upon itself and we became conscious of consciousness, it was necessary, for the survival of our species, to invent “morality” that revolved around self-preservation.

Even with evolution being true, natural selection (a completely physical process) cannot force anything into consciousness. Consciousness and rational thought require an immaterial intellect which physical functions cannot themselves provide. The human soul must be created … and it cannot be created merely by amino acids.

Now … can natural law be found in nature? It seems a lot of people don’t know what this means. Morality is the principles that one must act on in order to become good. What does becoming good mean? Well, for a human, we must look at what a human is. After determining what a human is, we determine what makes a human function well (i.e. what makes him a good human). After determining what makes a human function well … and specifically how humans must act in this regard … then you have begun contemplating natural law.

All this can be done … naturally (i.e. without divine revelation). Hence, natural law can be found in nature.

Is it an arrogant and idiotic concept? No. It makes a lot of sense.

 

[tonyrey]

Since you did bring up hitler, i am obligated to comment against my own reservations. you present a false dichotomy between nietzsche’s views and catholic christianity, as if some sort of synthesis, however unlikely, were impossible.

How do you reconcile Nietzsche’s belief in the death of God and the will to power with Christianity?

I suppose my “thesis” for this thread is that the concept of “natural law” isn’t natural. Not only is it not natural, but it also not catholic. It has pagan origins from Aristotle and the stoics. I see it as intellectual cargo smuggled in via the airplane of aquinas. This is in fact not uncommon in promulgation of christianity. The date of we celebrate christmas is actually a pagan holiday, the winter solstice. Many of our “christmas” traditions including cutting down trees, gifts, the yule log, etc…are pagan traditions that were superimposed upon christianity to make for a smoother transition from pagan culture to a culture of christianity. i feel that in a similar way, the idea of natural law has infiltrated catholicism. It is indisputable that pagan ideas influenced the church fathers. anyone who has read origen, augustine, or aquinas will agree (i personally have not read aquinas, hence this thread). please correct me if i am wrong and provide counter arguments. i will listen.

The beauty of Catholicism is that it has absorbed and transformed pagan ideas and customs into Christian feasts and rituals.

Lastly, if you hold the position that all life did not evolve from single celled organisms than this thread is not for you. Natural selection is cruel and unmerciful. If you accept the evidence for evolutionary theory, as I do, you will admit that there was a point when our ancestors were indistinguishable from the base beasts. I am not arguing against the words of St.Paul who said basically, that non-christians will be judged according to their conscience. His words were true at the time that he said them, but this contention was not always true (that our animal ancestors had the law of God written on their hearts). I am not debating the fact that we HAVE a conscience. Only that there was a point in time when human beings were not morally conscious or conscious of our conscience. Therefore, at the time when the cruel process of natural selection forced on us a consciousness that folded in upon itself and we became conscious of consciousness, it was necessary, for the survival of our species, to invent “morality” that revolved around self-preservation.

Those who wrote about natural law were not aware of evolution and were considering human beings as rational beings with free will - which we undoubtedly are despite our physical origin. They were not concerned with the natural law of the jungle but with the natural** law for those who live in society and can distinguish between good and evil**.

 

[rvilbig]

They were not concerned with the natural law of the jungle but with the natural** law for those who live in society and can distinguish between good and evil**.

Scripture actually describes the law of the jungle, in the book of Judges:

“Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’ But the olive tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my rich oil, whereby men and gods are honored, and go to wave over the trees? Then the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come; you reign over us!” But the fig tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come you, and reign over us.’ But the vine answered them, ‘Must I give up my wine that cheers gods and men, and go to wave over the trees? Then all the trees said to the buckthorn, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ But the buckthorn replied to the trees, ‘If you wish to anoint me king over you in good faith, come and take refuge in my shadow. Otherwise, let fire come from the buckthorn and devour the cedars of Lebanon” (Judges 9:8-15).

However, Christ revealed the law we are called to adopt:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” (Matthew 5:38-45)

The fitness of Christ’s law compared to the lesser law of the jungle (which continues to compete within our very selves) was testified to by Tertullian: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed” (Tertullian, Apology, 50)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[tonyrey]

Scripture actually describes the law of the jungle, in the book of Judges:

“Once the trees went to anoint a king over themselves. So they said to the olive tree, ‘Reign over us.’ But the olive tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my rich oil, whereby men and gods are honored, and go to wave over the trees? Then the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come; you reign over us!” But the fig tree answered them, ‘Must I give up my sweetness and my good fruit, and go to wave over the trees?’ Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come you, and reign over us.’ But the vine answered them, ‘Must I give up my wine that cheers gods and men, and go to wave over the trees? Then all the trees said to the buckthorn, ‘Come; you reign over us!’ But the buckthorn replied to the trees, ‘If you wish to anoint me king over you in good faith, come and take refuge in my shadow. Otherwise, let fire come from the buckthorn and devour the cedars of Lebanon” (Judges 9:8-15).

However, Christ revealed the law we are called to adopt:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well. Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles. Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow. You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” (Matthew 5:38-45)

The fitness of Christ’s law compared to the lesser law of the jungle (which continues to compete within our very selves) was testified to by Tertullian: “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed” (Tertullian, Apology, 50)

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

A fascinating quotation and a fine contrast!

 

[Hubriss]

Agnostics and atheists, I expect you above all to get behind the notion of natural law if, in fact, you believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, besides what institutions say.

It really seems like there are two ways of thinking that leads to a rejection of natural law: 1) Nihilism, where there is no good and evil (something that Niezsche represents), and 2) Religious fundamentalism, where all law is only really known through divine revelation.

The moderate and well-balanced view is one that includes natural law.

Yes, we have natural tendencies to decide what is good or bad, but they are not supported by any “law” enforcer other than ourselves, so they are not objective laws forced over nature. Yes, as humans we all have tendencies to believe certain actions right and wrong, and the majority of people can hold the same moral intuition, but it does not mean that this morality is created and enforced by something higher than ourselves.

Law requires a regulator and an enforcers. Natural Law assumes one which in this case would be supernatural. Therefore it is not Natural Law that you Catholics claim, but rather Supernatural Law, God’s Law, or Catholic Law.

 

[Betterave]

Yes, we have natural tendencies to decide what is good or bad, but they are not supported by any “law” enforcer other than ourselves, so they are not objective laws forced over nature. Yes, as humans we all have tendencies to believe certain actions right and wrong, and the majority of people can hold the same moral intuition, but it does not mean that this morality is created and enforced by something higher than ourselves.

Law requires a regulator and an enforcers. Natural Law assumes one which in this case would be supernatural. Therefore it is not Natural Law that you Catholics claim, but rather Supernatural Law, God’s Law, or Catholic Law.

Please read Areopagite’s posts. You’re missing the point.

 

[rvilbig]

A fascinating quotation and a fine contrast!

Thanks . In the book of Judges, Jotham actually extrapolates from this law of nature to guide the citizens in their appointment of a king:

“Now then, if you have acted in good faith and honorably in appointing Abimelech your king, …] rejoice in Abimelech and may he in turn rejoice in you. But if not, let fire come forth from Abimelech to devour the citizens of Shechem and Beth-millo, and let fire come forth from the citizens and from Beth-millo to devour Abimelech." (Judges 9:16a,19b-20)

Seems similar to what atheists do today: advise men to behave like the lower life forms. This seems to be an example of the evolutionary program “Tit for tat.” Nonetheless, by introspection we do know that humans possess an internal moral guide, known as the natural law, or what Newman called “the aboriginal Vicar of Christ” (quoted in the Catechism). Few are those who found it prior to Christ’s coming: Socrates, Apophis, and the Buddha come to mind, and even these are disputable.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Areopagite]

Yes, we have natural tendencies to decide what is good or bad, but they are not supported by any “law” enforcer other than ourselves, so they are not objective laws forced over nature. Yes, as humans we all have tendencies to believe certain actions right and wrong, and the majority of people can hold the same moral intuition, but it does not mean that this morality is created and enforced by something higher than ourselves.

Law requires a regulator and an enforcers. Natural Law assumes one which in this case would be supernatural. Therefore it is not Natural Law that you Catholics claim, but rather Supernatural Law, God’s Law, or Catholic Law.

Law requires a regulator and an enforcer? This is a premise I do not accept. Laws can exist without being enforced.

Now, if you agree that we have a natural ability to figure out what is objectively good and bad,* then this is what the Catholic Church means by natural law*. The belief that natural law is enforced by a divine power is not essentially included in the idea of natural law. So, if you believe in objective justice and injustice … you (divine enforcer or not) believe in natural law (at least how the Catholic Church defines it).

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, we have natural tendencies to decide what is good or bad, but they are not supported by any “law” enforcer other than ourselves, so they are not objective laws forced over nature. Yes, as humans we all have tendencies to believe certain actions right and wrong, and the majority of people can hold the same moral intuition, but it does not mean that this morality is created and enforced by something higher than ourselves.

Law requires a regulator and an enforcers. Natural Law assumes one which in this case would be supernatural. Therefore it is not Natural Law that you Catholics claim, but rather Supernatural Law, God’s Law, or Catholic Law.

Not quite. Natural law is what Catholics believe God has place IN creation, it’s accessible to ALL through reason alone. No need for divine intervention, supernatural beings, etc. Just because God is the ultimate source of natural law does not mean natural law is itself supernatural. Catholics believe God is the source of all creation, of everything. That doesn’t mean your lawn is supernatural, or divine, or Catholic.

Read Paul’s letter to the Romans for an early and fundamental explanation.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Now, if you agree that we have a natural ability to figure out what is objectively good and bad,* then this is what the Catholic Church means by natural law*.

I believe the above is objectively true now and ever since the church existed. It may also have been true a few thousand years before Christ came, but I find difficulty accepting that it was always true.

I really appreciate the references to Introduction to the Devout life and the examples contained therein. I own the book but have not read all of it. The concept of “sacrifice” does appear in nature, and I will not dispute this. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s intentional sacrifice, and there are many more counterexamples to the idea that the nature of nature reflects God.

Nature seems to favor strength, dominance, and violence; attributes that are opposite the person of Christ. We must keep in mind that God intentionally created our neanderthal ancestors to reproduce and eventually foster the development of intelligence in our species. The level of intelligence was not always the same as it is now in homosapiens. God allowed “alpha male” cavemen to knock multiple females unconscious, drag them by the hair, and rape them so that our species could pass on favorable genes that allowed us to survive. We are in great debt to these primordial “conquerers” who allowed us to exist, but ultimately we are in greater debt to God who made their existence necessary so that our species could advance to a point where we were intellectually capable of receiving “The Word” in the flesh (Christ) while simultaneously being able to make sense of it. God became incarnate at a time when natural selection had ceased to function as it normally did. With the development of agriculture and a structure in society, mankind was free to contemplate higher concepts such as “meaning”, “law”, “purpose”, “good”, “evil”, etc. We were not primarily focused on the lower part of maslow’s hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, survival).

Someone asked how you can reconcile the views of Nietzsche with Catholic Christianity. In one sense, he came from a Lutheran background which leads us to believe that his understanding of it was very “protestant” in the sense that he had a lutheran understanding of salvation via faith and not works. If you have the courage to read “The Anti-Christ” you will find that he labeled Christianity as the epitome of Nihilism. From the perspective of Luther, it actually makes sense; as long as you have faith, your actions in this life are meaningless. The only thing that matters is the afterlife. I believe his commentary on the Stoics was intended to be criticism, although I’m not sure. I don’t speak German, and sometimes literary device is lost in translation. The phrase “Gott is tot” or “God is dead” is a half rhyme in german and was selected by him for its poetic effect. The actual meaning is frequently misunderstood. Stoicism could also be perceived by him as nihilism, since he made it his goal to overcome the natural state of man and developed the concept of the “overman”…ubermensch.

Like it or not, he has influenced what we call “postmodern christianity” and many catholic thinkers. If you are interested in this, I would recommend checking out the roman catholic philosopher vattimo (although i honestly can’t endorse him or agree with him because he is too liberal for my tastes). More importantly intelligent catholics should and will find great benefit from the thinker, Rene Girard. Rarely will you find some like me who leans toward traditional catholicism recommending others to investigate “postmodern Christianity”, but I spend an awful lot of time in contemplative prayer, formally and informally. I know I will never have ultimate intellectual satisfaction in my pursuit of understanding the being and nature of God, but I derive great pleasure from it.

 

[Areopagite]

I believe the above is objectively true now and ever since the church existed. It may also have been true a few thousand years before Christ came, but I find difficulty accepting that it was always true.

Once again, natural law are the moral principles that can be arrived at by natural reason. Now, if there were no animals with reason at one point on the earth, then such moral principles could not be known. Could you then say that natural law wouldn’t exist? Sure. I guess.

Anyone have an alternate view on that? It’s kind of an interesting question … but perhaps not exactly relevant. Or maybe it is?

I would say, though, man by nature is a rational animal. Now, is it possible that the early biological state of man caused his emotions to cloud his reason so much that He was not able to understand morality? Yeah, I suppose that’s possible. There is no evidence for it, in my opinion.

Nature seems to favor strength, dominance, and violence; attributes that are opposite the person of Christ.

Opposite, eh? Well, it is true that Christ came as a lamb when He was last on earth as compared to His second coming, in which He will come as a Judge. But nonetheless, I would not say strength, dominance, and violence is not antithetical to Him even during His first coming. I don’t see any particular way He was “weak.” He certainly “dominated” in the sense that He proclaimed Himself Lord and founded the largest religion in the world. And He also had whipped the money-changers out of the Temple in anger. But if you’re still not satisfied, in His second coming, He’s busting out the big guns and it ain’t going to be pretty (at least for some).

The notion that Christ is weak, I think, is one of the worst ideas in history. It’s no wonder why we have all these gay, effeminate-looking Jesuses in devotional art nowadays. Jesus, I say, was a Man.

Also, it seems like you’re using the word “nature” to refer merely to the physical world (because you seem to equate nature with animals, passion, and force and whatnot). Now, granted “nature” is a broad word with many usages. But if you simply are using it in this way, then I can see why one who would tend to think that “natural law” is not found in nature … because of course natural law is a set of abstract concepts and hence definitely not an inhabitant of the physical world … and not part of “nature” in that sense. But it IS part of nature insofar as humans can figure it out without the aid of supernatural information but by looking at the physical world, abstracting meaning from them, and conclude truths regarding what man must do to be better and happier.

We must keep in mind that God intentionally created our neanderthal ancestors to reproduce and eventually foster the development of intelligence in our species. The level of intelligence was not always the same as it is now in homosapiens. God allowed “alpha male” cavemen to knock multiple females unconscious, drag them by the hair, and rape them so that our species could pass on favorable genes that allowed us to survive.

Even if we descended from neanderthals (though many evolutionists do not think so), this drama that you have depicted is devoid from all the evidence we have concerning them (and concerning cavemen). This is a fiction dreamt up by Nietzsche (or whoever before him). There is no evidence of cavemen knocking females unconscious and raping them. None whatsoever. Check the cave paintings (because that’s the best we’ve got).

We are in great debt to these primordial “conquerers” who allowed us to exist, but ultimately we are in greater debt to God who made their existence necessary so that our species could advance to a point where we were intellectually capable of receiving “The Word” in the flesh (Christ) while simultaneously being able to make sense of it. God became incarnate at a time when natural selection had ceased to function as it normally did. With the development of agriculture and a structure in society, mankind was free to contemplate higher concepts such as “meaning”, “law”, “purpose”, “good”, “evil”, etc. We were not primarily focused on the lower part of maslow’s hierarchy of needs (food, shelter, survival).

There is some truth to this.

Someone asked how you can reconcile the views of Nietzsche with Catholic Christianity. In one sense, he came from a Lutheran background which leads us to believe that his understanding of it was very “protestant” in the sense that he had a lutheran understanding of salvation via faith and not works. If you have the courage to read “The Anti-Christ” you will find that he labeled Christianity as the epitome of Nihilism. From the perspective of Luther, it actually makes sense; as long as you have faith, your actions in this life are meaningless. The only thing that matters is the afterlife. I believe his commentary on the Stoics was intended to be criticism, although I’m not sure. I don’t speak German, and sometimes literary device is lost in translation. The phrase “Gott is tot” or “God is dead” is a half rhyme in german and was selected by him for its poetic effect. The actual meaning is frequently misunderstood. Stoicism could also be perceived by him as nihilism, since he made it his goal to overcome the natural state of man and developed the concept of the “overman”…ubermensch.

My advice: Don’t read Nietzsche. He’s pretty much the stupidest person who ever existed.