Why should we follow the natural law?

[FireFromHeaven]

I’ve been doing some reading recently to try to understand natural law ethics. I’ve read some stuff by Edward Fester and by David Oderberg. Both have done an excellent job of explaining how humans have an essential nature and how this nature entails certain moral ideas. However I’m still struggling with the question in the title. Why exactly should someone strive to fulfill their nature?

 

[Rhubarb]

If you buy natural law as you briefly described - a nature that entails certain moral ideas, then the reason to follow natural law is to be good. If you want to be good and do good, you follow it. At least, that’d be my intuition regarding one who believes in natural law.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We should follow the natural law because it’s not nice to fool mother nature.

 

[spedteacherita]

We should follow the natural law because it’s not nice to fool mother nature.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Why exactly should someone strive to fulfill their nature?

Unless one wants to argue morality does not exist, then it is apparent that the sensibilities of man rests of man fulfilling his properly ordered nature. For example, the reason that societies throughout history overwhelmingly teach the evil of murder is not so much because majority automatically rules, but because we recognize that the persistence of life is a person’s proper due. Therefore, taking that life prematurely is to violate the other. Another example is stealing. It is overwhelmingly recognized that to steal the possession of another is a violation of that person’s proper due as a human being.

Here’s another angle I like to posit. Moral “health” is analogical to physical “health.” For example, how do we determine that someone is sick? In order to do that, we necessarily must have an idea of what a properly healthy body is. We know that a healthy human arm is covered by intact skin. If that arm gets scraped by a sharp rock, that skin might incur a cut. We recognize that the bleeding should be stopped. A healthy arm does not bleed. Even after that, we recognize that it is healthy to treat the wound to prevent infection, which is also not proper to a healthy body. We might even apply ointment to prevent scarring. Such response is to restore the body in its proper order. If we do not know what the body’s proper order is, we could not rightly call a wound a “bad thing.”

In the same way, we cannot call something immoral unless we have an idea of what a properly ordered person is. A properly ordered person is able to live… is due his/her possessions… is defiled if sold against his/her will into slavery… is properly ordered toward a singular, complementary mate… is properly prone to fertility in conjugal relations…

In other words, both physical order and spiritual order have a certain economy proper to them. It is the recognition of proper order that allows us to identify a “sickness” or a “wound.” It is the recognition of this “natural law” that allows us to identify that which is “wrong.” If we fail to recognize that humans have certain dignity and order proper to them, we fall prone to justifying some violation of proper physical or spiritual health.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve been doing some reading recently to try to understand natural law ethics. I’ve read some stuff by Edward Fester and by David Oderberg. Both have done an excellent job of explaining how humans have an essential nature and how this nature entails certain moral ideas. However I’m still struggling with the question in the title. Why exactly should someone strive to fulfill their nature?

Because the alternative is sin. Anything outside our nature is opposed to nature: i.e. to God’s will. And sin and misery is the ultimate end-even as autonomy from God’s will carries with it the promise of even greater fulfillment and happiness. But this is the lie Adam and Eve fell for. We all have to learn of the fallacy of this promise for ourselves-the hard way.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Unless one wants to argue morality does not exist, then it is apparent that the sensibilities of man rests of man fulfilling his properly ordered nature. For example, the reason that societies throughout history overwhelmingly teach the evil of murder is not so much because majority automatically rules, but because we recognize that the persistence of life is a person’s proper due. Therefore, taking that life prematurely is to violate the other. Another example is stealing. It is overwhelmingly recognized that to steal the possession of another is a violation of that person’s proper due as a human being.

Here’s another angle I like to posit. Moral “health” is analogical to physical “health.” For example, how do we determine that someone is sick? In order to do that, we necessarily must have an idea of what a properly healthy body is. We know that a healthy human arm is covered by intact skin. If that arm gets scraped by a sharp rock, that skin might incur a cut. We recognize that the bleeding should be stopped. A healthy arm does not bleed. Even after that, we recognize that it is healthy to treat the wound to prevent infection, which is also not proper to a healthy body. We might even apply ointment to prevent scarring. Such response is to restore the body in its proper order. If we do not know what the body’s proper order is, we could not rightly call a wound a “bad thing.”

In the same way, we cannot call something immoral unless we have an idea of what a properly ordered person is. A properly ordered person is able to live… is due his/her possessions… is defiled if sold against his/her will into slavery… is properly ordered toward a singular, complementary mate… is properly prone to fertility in conjugal relations…

In other words, both physical order and spiritual order have a certain economy proper to them. It is the recognition of proper order that allows us to identify a “sickness” or a “wound.” It is the recognition of this “natural law” that allows us to identify that which is “wrong.” If we fail to recognize that humans have certain dignity and order proper to them, we fall prone to justifying some violation of proper physical or spiritual health.

Thank you for that excellent explanation. I’ve been going over this point with a friend. If someone feels happy disregarding the natural law, why should they change to follow it?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Same reason why we follow the Manufacturer’s instruction book for our new car.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Unless one wants to argue morality does not exist, then it is apparent that the sensibilities of man rests of man fulfilling his properly ordered nature. For example, the reason that societies throughout history overwhelmingly teach the evil of murder is not so much because majority automatically rules, but because we recognize that the persistence of life is a person’s proper due. Therefore, taking that life prematurely is to violate the other. Another example is stealing. It is overwhelmingly recognized that to steal the possession of another is a violation of that person’s proper due as a human being.

Here’s another angle I like to posit. Moral “health” is analogical to physical “health.” For example, how do we determine that someone is sick? In order to do that, we necessarily must have an idea of what a properly healthy body is. We know that a healthy human arm is covered by intact skin. If that arm gets scraped by a sharp rock, that skin might incur a cut. We recognize that the bleeding should be stopped. A healthy arm does not bleed. Even after that, we recognize that it is healthy to treat the wound to prevent infection, which is also not proper to a healthy body. We might even apply ointment to prevent scarring. Such response is to restore the body in its proper order. If we do not know what the body’s proper order is, we could not rightly call a wound a “bad thing.”

In the same way, we cannot call something immoral unless we have an idea of what a properly ordered person is. A properly ordered person is able to live… is due his/her possessions… is defiled if sold against his/her will into slavery… is properly ordered toward a singular, complementary mate… is properly prone to fertility in conjugal relations…

In other words, both physical order and spiritual order have a certain economy proper to them. It is the recognition of proper order that allows us to identify a “sickness” or a “wound.” It is the recognition of this “natural law” that allows us to identify that which is “wrong.” If we fail to recognize that humans have certain dignity and order proper to them, we fall prone to justifying some violation of proper physical or spiritual health.

So, in your analogy to physical health, what is the moral equivalent of artificial human augmentation? We can exceed normal physical limitations. We do not say that someone who gets cosmetic surgery is ill. We do not say that normal people who use performance enhancing drugs (e.g. nootropics) are ill.

Why should we merely try to “fulfill” our nature when we could surpass it?

 

[on_the_hill]

I may have read somewhere that the Church didn’t always emphasize/follow Natural Law. Ideas?

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, in your analogy to physical health, what is the moral equivalent of artificial human augmentation? We can exceed normal physical limitations. We do not say that someone who gets cosmetic surgery is ill. We do not say that normal people who use performance enhancing drugs (e.g. nootropics) are ill.

Why should we merely try to “fulfill” our nature when we could surpass it?

With cosmetic surgery, if it was a vain augmentation, then yes, it could be a vice. If it were to restore some sense of normalcy within reason, then it should not necessarily be a wrong.

If we were merely enhancing strength, that would be a direction of “healthier,” so I don’t quite see the problem analogically. If you are talking about some super-human bionic arm, that would still be in a direction of “supernaturally healthy” that would be comparable to some supernatural virtue in my analogy. Strength corresponds to virtue in the analogy. Weakness/defects/wounds/disease corresponds to sin.

 

[clem456]

I’ve been doing some reading recently to try to understand natural law ethics. I’ve read some stuff by Edward Fester and by David Oderberg. Both have done an excellent job of explaining how humans have an essential nature and how this nature entails certain moral ideas. However I’m still struggling with the question in the title. Why exactly should someone strive to fulfill their nature?

Because it’s the smart (reason-able) thing to do.
The natural law leads to our beatitude. It leads to our own good end, which is a relationship with the Creator and endower (did I just create a word?) of the natural law.

God is reason-able. “Logos”. This is not the same as “fully knowable in his essence”. According to our capacity to know, God is reasonable. Mysterious, but appealing to our reason.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why should we merely try to “fulfill” our nature when we could surpass it?

We are naturally imperfect. We can surpass our natural imperfections by seeking perfection.

It is not unnatural to seek perfection. It is unnatural not to seek to surpass ourselves … to wallow in the hedonistic sty. That way lies imperfection and sometimes even death of body and spirit.

 

[clem456]

We are naturally imperfect. We can surpass our natural imperfections by seeking perfection.

It is not unnatural to seek perfection. It is unnatural not to seek to surpass ourselves … to wallow in the hedonistic sty. That way lies imperfection and sometimes even death of body and spirit.

And our desire to seek fulfillment can be perverted by various means, such that a person desires things that are bad, even while knowing they are bad. A perverted will and conscience can lead us against what is naturally knowable and leading to our beatitude. Acting against our true fulfillment only leads to death.
I know this from experience unfortunately.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

With cosmetic surgery, if it was a vain augmentation, then yes, it could be a vice. If it were to restore some sense of normalcy within reason, then it should not necessarily be a wrong.

If we were merely enhancing strength, that would be a direction of “healthier,” so I don’t quite see the problem analogically. If you are talking about some super-human bionic arm, that would still be in a direction of “supernaturally healthy” that would be comparable to some supernatural virtue in my analogy. Strength corresponds to virtue in the analogy. Weakness/defects/wounds/disease corresponds to sin.

Sort of. But we can give ourselves senses that have no natural analogue (e.g. magnetic implants allow us to sense electric fields) or abilities that are only useful in today’s world (e.g. ability to control a computer with our brains.) Even in cases of vain cosmetic surgery, we don’t say that the person is physically ill (although we would say this about extreme cases.)

Why can’t we analogously modify or augment our “human nature” to include new or different attributes?

We are naturally imperfect. We can surpass our natural imperfections by seeking perfection.

Sure, but who is deciding what perfect is? Some people might say that 20/20 is “perfect” vision. But others might say: “that’s not good enough, we won’t stop until everyone has a Star Trek visor that lets them see a much broader spectrum of light at better than 20/20.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

If someone feels happy disregarding the natural law, why should they change to follow it?

I think this gets to the heart of morality. Is the measure of right or wrong based on any individual’s feelings? I would say no.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Sort of. But we can give ourselves senses that have no natural analogue (e.g. magnetic implants allow us to sense electric fields) or abilities that are only useful in today’s world (e.g. ability to control a computer with our brains.) Even in cases of vain cosmetic surgery, we don’t say that the person is physically ill (although we would say this about extreme cases.)

Why can’t we analogously modify or augment our “human nature” to include new or different attributes?

I don’t recall saying you couldn’t. But if those “enhancements” revoked what would otherwise be a healthy, like made us sterile, for example, then they would likely cross the moral line. If it only helped give us better eyesight, that’s something else. I would not argue that Stephen Hawking controlling a computer with his brain is a violation because it is ordered as a fix to a body that is broken.

I think we are straying from the concept of how morality is identified, by which I argued that we have an understanding of what is properly ordered. Thus, we can identify sickness because we have an idea of what is a properly ordered body. And we can identify morality because we have an idea of what is a properly ordered human dignity. So, again, stealing is wrong because it violates the proper due of another. Murder is wrong for the same reason. Etc…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sure, but who is deciding what perfect is? Some people might say that 20/20 is “perfect” vision. But others might say: “that’s not good enough, we won’t stop until everyone has a Star Trek visor that lets them see a much broader spectrum of light at better than 20/20.”

Are you so mired in materialism that you cannot acknowledge moral and spiritual perfection?

The Light of the World is so much better a vision than 20/20, and the blind can be as spiritually perfect as possible.

Matthew 5:48 ►
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think this gets to the heart of morality. Is the measure of right or wrong based on any individual’s feelings? I would say no.

I would say no too. Yet I think we do feel the consequence of virtue and the consequence of sin.

One makes us feel noble, the other makes us feel ignoble.

When a man says he feels happy with his sins, he is only lying to himself.

He feels sad in truth, but the sadness of the truth is buried beneath the lie.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Are you so mired in materialism that you cannot acknowledge moral and spiritual perfection?

The Light of the World is so much better a vision than 20/20, and the blind can be as spiritually perfect as possible.

Matthew 5:48 ►
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Now you’re really mixing up the metaphors. The original point was that we can understand “natural law” (and thereby gain insight into spiritual health) by considering physical health as an analogy. I was pointing out that physical health is malleable. Its all well and good to define some sort of “normal” function of our human bodies and refer to things which fall short of the normal function as disordered. However it is clearly possible to modify what “normal” is (e.g. superhuman vision, additional senses.)

I’m simply asking if it is possible to modify what is considered “natural” according to natural law in the same way it is possible to modify the “normal” functions of our bodies.