• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Natural Law ????

And since this discussion will inevitably turn to sex, here is your relevant (and short) defense of the natural law regarding sex:

Edward Feser said:
In the context of a recent post on another subject, I had occasion to set out and defend the “perverted faculty argument” that forms an important part -- though only a part -- of a complete traditional natural law account of sex. As I have argued, whatever else sex is, it is essentially procreative. If human beings did not procreate, then while they might form close emotional bonds with one another, maybe even exclusive ones, they would not have sex -- that is to say, they would not be man and woman, as opposed to something asexual or androgynous. (The claim is not that procreation entails sex -- there is in the biological realm such a thing as asexual reproduction -- but rather that sex entails procreation in the sense that procreation is the reason sex exists in the first place, even if sex does not in every case result in procreation and even if procreation could have occurred in some other way.) Given the Aristotelian metaphysics of essentialism and immanent teleology that underlies traditional natural law theory, this fact is normative. And that some individual human beings have bodily traits or psychological dispositions that don’t reflect the procreative end of sex no more makes it any less normative than the existence of three-legged dogs (due to injury or genetic defect) falsifies the claim that dogs by nature are “supposed to” have four legs.
Click to expand...

Much more regarding the ethics of romantic love - Edward Feser: The metaphysics of romantic love
 
Dragonfly said:
I've seen a few posts recently about "natural law".

Usually in threads where it makes no sense to be spouting such nonsense.

Let's start here: Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So what does that mean?

Nature is harsh. Nature is deadly. Nature is cruel.

I posted this in another thread: Animals can be giant jerks | I ****ing Love Science

Do the people who post things about "natural law" honestly know what they're talking about?

What's the thought process there?
Click to expand...

The natural state is oft considered as a system removed from outside force.
 
KevinKohler said:
I mean offense by this, but I have to assume you do not, or have not, spent much time around young children.


Empathy is taught. We're not born with it.
Click to expand...

Empathy is an innate trait of humanity. Intelligence plus empathy allows us to understand natural rights.
 
Ikari said:
The natural state is oft considered as a system removed from outside force.
Click to expand...

A statement in a thread that reflected this idea then caused me to ask about things like medicine.

A person who wishes to curtail certain human actions by saying those actions are against natural law, should also think any form of medicine is against "natural law" as well, right?

Isn't building a permanent place to live on "private property" against "natural law"?
 
Ikari said:
The natural state is oft considered as a system removed from outside force.
Click to expand...

The "natural state" is a state where one is unaffected by natural forces?

Or does "outside force" refer to supernatural forces?
 
Ikari said:
The natural state is oft considered as a system removed from outside force.
Click to expand...

The only way to remove oneself from outside force is to die, or be made immortal.
 
sangha said:
The truth is that no philosopher of merit has proposed that we live in the sort of "state of nature" in which "natural rights" prevail.
Click to expand...

Of course not. One cannot rely on ecology or biology in a social construct. The universality, thus inalienable and self evident, is established in a social context using empirical evidence through social science. That which is deemed innate can be labeled socially natural.

It's absurd to use eco/biology to define a social construct. No one should do that.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course not. One cannot rely on ecology or biology in a social construct. The universality, thus inalienable and self evident, is established in a social context using empirical evidence through social science.

It's absurd to use eco/biology to define a social construct. No one should do that.
Click to expand...

So no comment about the rest of my post?

All acknowledge that the formation of society involves the concession of (some or all) "natural rights". The real debate is over which ones (ie rights) should and have been conceded. Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
So no comment about the rest of my post?
Click to expand...

Life and liberty are natural rights because they are innate desires made social by innate empathy. Objecting, to for example genocide, on the grounds of natural/human rights is a reasonable position.
 
sangha said:
That was non-responsive, so I'll take it as a "No comment"
Click to expand...

I edited to add: Objecting, to for example genocide, on the grounds of natural/human rights is a reasonable position.

Do you have a problem with objecting to genocide on the grounds of natural/human rights?
 
ecofarm said:
I edited to add: Objecting, to for example genocide, on the grounds of natural/human rights is a reasonable position.

Do you have a problem with objecting to genocide on the grounds of natural/human rights?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with your refusal to respond to the points I made. It just reinforces the truth of what I said.

Here they are again, in case you get the urge to respond

All acknowledge that the formation of society involves the concession of (some or all) "natural rights". The real debate is over which ones (ie rights) should and have been conceded. Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
Click to expand...
 
Dragonfly said:
A statement in a thread that reflected this idea then caused me to ask about things like medicine.

A person who wishes to curtail certain human actions by saying those actions are against natural law, should also think any form of medicine is against "natural law" as well, right?

Isn't building a permanent place to live on "private property" against "natural law"?
Click to expand...

It is in the nature of man to perpetuate his life. Medicine tends toward this and is thus not unnatural.

Resources such as land or food cannot be used by everyone, thus they must be divided.
 
sangha said:
I have no problem with your refusal to respond to the points I made. It just reinforces the truth of what I said.

Here they are again, in case you get the urge to respond
Click to expand...

Here again, in case you want to follow your claim being blown out of the water:

Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
Click to expand...

You have a problem with objecting to genocide on the ground of natural/human rights?
 
ecofarm said:
Here again, in case you want to follow your claim being blown out of the water:



You have a problem with objecting to genocide on the ground of natural/human rights?
Click to expand...

Human rights are not the same as "natural rights" so your response does not address what I said.

And even if they were the same, it still does not address what I said because I did not say that we had conceded every natural right.

Here is what I said again, in case you ever want to address what I said

All acknowledge that the formation of society involves the concession of (some or all) "natural rights". The real debate is over which ones (ie rights) should and have been conceded. Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
sangha said:
Natural rights are not the same as "natural rights" so your response does not address what I said.

And even if they were the same, it still does not address what I said because I did not say that we had conceded every natural right.
Click to expand...

Do you concede right to life? Is it ground upon which to object to genocide? Is it ground upon which to object to gays getting the death penalty?

You just don't like one particular natural (or "natural") rights argument, and you made an embarrassingly sweeping statement which is - quite clearly - BS.
 
ecofarm said:
Do you concede right to life? Is it ground upon which to object to genocide? Is it ground upon which to object to gays getting the death penalty?

You just don't like one particular natural (or "natural") rights argument, and you made an embarrassingly sweeping statement which is - quite clearly - BS.
Click to expand...

No, my argument is that the argument "any law or policy in opposition to natural rights is illegitimate/improper/misguided/etc" is unrealistic because in forming our society, we have conceded some of those rights.

IOW, the issue has nothing to do with what rights I like or object to. It's about which rights we, as a society, have conceded when forming the society.
 
sangha said:
IOW, the issue has nothing to do with what rights I like or object to. It's about which rights we, as a society, have conceded when forming the society.
Click to expand...

Fine. Those derived innately (universally) are natural rights. There are also human, civil, labor and environmental rights, which are derived indirectly and otherwise.
 
ecofarm said:
Fine. Those derived innately (universally) are natural rights.
Click to expand...

You are free to believe whatever you like, but that is not responsive to my points

There are also human, civil, labor and environmental rights, which are derived indirectly and otherwis.
Click to expand...

Still non-responsive

All acknowledge that the formation of society involves the concession of (some or all) "natural rights". The real debate is over which ones (ie rights) should and have been conceded. Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
Click to expand...

Let me know if you want to address the point that, in forming a society, we have conceded some of these "natural rights"
 
sangha said:
Let me know if you want to address the point that, in forming a society, we have conceded some of these "natural rights"
Click to expand...

Do you mean natural rights or "natural rights" (wtf that means)?

Are you arguing against an absolute?
 
ecofarm said:
Do you mean natural rights or "natural rights" (wtf that means)?

Are you arguing against an absolute?
Click to expand...

I am saying that the philosophers who believed in the existence of natural rights say that we have conceded some of those rights in forming a society

Do you agree or disagree?
 
sangha said:
I am saying that the philosophers who believed in the existence of natural rights say that we have conceded some of those rights in forming a society

Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

Of course, there are no absolutes. We concede liberty in that we cannot go to the movies naked. I don't understand why you were arguing against an absolute. Your strawman is defeated, gratz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom