• 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 ????

Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
31,346
Reaction score
19,888
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and so is universal.
Click to expand...

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?
 
1. The desire to live (or, to choose life or death) is innate.
+
2. Empathy is innate.
=
3. Life is a natural right.

One must examine social constructs from a sociological context and ask "what is socially natural".
 
I believe natural law has two related propositions:

1. A theory of morality whereby a moral proposition can be said, objectively, to be either true or false.

2. This morality can be derived from the nature of the world and the nature of human beings.

Think of it as this: these "laws" do not depend on human convention; in other words, [human] law and morality intersect.

I believe Aquinas distinguishes four types of law: (1) eternal law; (2) natural law; (3) human law; and (4) divine law.

Dragonfly said:
Nature is harsh. Nature is deadly. Nature is cruel. [...] What's the thought process there?
Click to expand...

I believe that your objection falls under a moralistic fallacy.

Edit: I am not a natural law proponent, and when someone arrives supporting natural law I'd be happy to take the opposing side.
 
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...

Natural law is somewhat less pleasing a concept than at first meets the eye. Have you looked at the Fat man Paradox? Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is one example of seemingly genetically programmed valuation of behavior that contradict rationality. There are a number of such dilemmas.
 
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 only natural law is the law to survive or die. The philosophy of natural law is just something people came up with for emotional comfort because some people need strong rules to live by as a weakness.
 
It's just an opinion, like so much else. To live as "nature intended" is to live under the tyranny of the strong.
 
The main criticism of natural law is the different interpretations of nature, and the various problems of appealing to nature/naturalistic fallacy.
 
Aekos said:
The main criticism of natural law is the different interpretations of nature, and the various problems of appealing to nature/naturalistic fallacy.
Click to expand...

My interpretation of nature is those laws/rights that derive from innate desires (and empathy, as laws/rights are social constructs). The universality (minus crazies who don't care if they live or die, of course) of a desire matched with empathy provides an innate path to the realization of the right to life. When rights are innate (in this case, the desire to choose life or death and empathy), they are inalienable and self evident.

A fallacy can only enter when someone loses social context and looks to ecology and biology for what is socially natural. You see, it doesn't matter where these innate things come from, a creator or otherwise, the important consideration is that they are innate.
 
ecofarm said:
1. The desire to live (or, to choose life or death) is innate.
+
2. Empathy is innate.
=
3. Life is a natural right.

One must examine social constructs from a sociological context and ask "what is socially natural".
Click to expand...

The problem with your syllogism is the failure to qualify your premises adequately. I would argue that this, as presented, is a non sequitur.

You see, it doesn't matter where these innate things come from, a creator or otherwise, the important consideration is that they are innate.
Click to expand...

How do we establish what is innate biologically and what is an "innate" reaction to artificially constructed societal norms?
 
Aekos said:
How do we establish what is innate biologically and what is an "innate" reaction to artificially constructed societal norms?
Click to expand...

Scientifically, of course, with empirical evidence. For example:

Surveys - these are empirical.
Literature Review - this supports the empirical evidence.

What we are looking for, in the case of natural rights, is universality (minus .0001%, nutbags who don't care if they live or die).
 
ecofarm said:
Scientifically, of course, with empirical evidence. For example:

Surveys - these are empirical.
Literature Review - this supports the empirical evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure empathy, for example, is considered innate. I have seen studies arguing for and against. It is by no means an empirical fact in the same way that, let's say, gravity is.

The problem here is that, as I said, you cannot conclude life is a natural right by claiming that both the desire to live and empathy are innate. It simply doesn't follow unless you can establish each premise as true.
 
Aekos said:
I'm not sure empathy, for example, is considered innate. I have seen studies arguing for and against. It is by no means an empirical fact in the same way that, let's say, gravity is.

The problem here is that, as I said, you cannot conclude life is a natural right by claiming that both the desire to live and empathy are innate. It simply doesn't follow unless you can establish each premise as true.
Click to expand...

I edited (above) to add:

What we are looking for, in the case of natural rights, is universality (minus .0001%, nutbags who don't care if they live or die).

We can establish, scientifically, that the desire to choose to live or die (and empathy, to some extent) are innate through universality. Where this comes from, whether a creator or elsewhere, is irrelevant. When the founders noted that natural rights were from a creator, what they meant was that these rights are innate.

Being innate is what makes rights inalienable and self evident.
 
Dragonfly said:
So what does that mean?
Click to expand...

It is basically a negative liberties argument -- the state or any person has no liberty to stop you from doing anything that does not harm another. It is of course made up just like positive liberties arguments, but at least negative liberties do not put a cost on another.
 
The establishment of inalienable rights presupposes a social contract; that is, that we are not in a state of nature. Very obviously, if we were, only the strongest could benefit from their rights. Therefore we cede some of our freedoms to a sovereign entity designed to protect ourselves from one another (the state). I believe this to be social convention; a matter of expedience, as opposed to some universal principle. Considering the opinion of what is a right varies across cultures, I would like to ask you if the Western Idea of inalienable rights is universal across all cultures? Why isn't it, if nature can be so easily interpreted and henceforth rights formulated?
 
Empathy is not innate, it is learned. Just read the profiles of major socio and psychopaths in the last 50 years...they'll have similarities in their childhoods.
 
In my opinion, to use the world natural, or nature, it means to just be as is. The absence of meddling. I would certainly consider restricting each other's actions via various means as meddling. So to me, natural law is no law at all, at least not in the popularly understood, conventional sense.
 
The concept of inaliable rights is not universal across all cultures...in fact, it's annethema to some. At least by western standards of what should be rights.

I COULD argue that ALL societies have rights by virtue of being a society. A society, no matter how chaotic, necessitates rules, and in a way, a commonly understood and followed rule is a right. The only ones with NO rights are those that live outside of any group or society...the lone wolf. And they are typically the "most free".....free to live, free to die, free to flourish, free to suffer.

When you join a society, you surrender freedom to a greater or lesser degree in exchange for a certain degree of security, stability...certainty.
 
KevinKohler said:
Empathy is not innate, it is learned. Just read the profiles of major socio and psychopaths in the last 50 years...they'll have similarities in their childhoods.
Click to expand...

Psycho and sociopaths do not factor into sociological constructs.
 
ecofarm said:
Psycho and sociopaths do not factor into sociological constructs.
Click to expand...

No, but some of them are CREATED, not born. Nurture vs nature. I believe empathy is learned.
 
If you'll notice, almost every argument that rejects, marginalizes, mocks or diminishes the concepts of Individual Natural Rights and Natural Law originates from the state collectivist left.

After observing such on these fora for a number of years, I've concluded their motivations are fairly simple;

yet another deceitful avenue to exploit the "victim / oppressor" dichotomy - which is the bread and butter of the progressive politics - in order to justify and garner support for ushering in more centrally planned and administered "outcomes".

Now again, if you've been paying attention, you've probably figured out that the left's biggest heartburns and histrionics - real and contrived - surround "unfairness", "inequity" and "social injustice" (all "victimhood" constructs), and pointing their bony, accusatory fingers at the "barriers" to "fixing" such (which invariably comprise the "obstructionist", "regressive", "oppressive" LAST DEFENDERS of the central authority limiting US Constitution and America's economic system...better known as "the evil right-wing").

And herein lies their problem...."unfairness", "inequity" and "social injustice" are inherent, natural byproducts of individual Natural Rights and Natural Law....and try as the left may, the former CANNOT be "fixed" without an authoritarian government systematically trampling all over your constitutionally protected latter.

So it appears their tidy "solution" to this sticky wicket is to simply disavow their existence (and condition the endless parade of soon-to-be-voting-age youngsters to question/disavow their existence....some of which might even assume themselves "centrist" for doing so), and ultimately have "enough" believe their rights and liberties are NOT derived from their "creator" (we atheist generally consider this "creator" to be "nature"),

but from benevolent, judicious men and women in government....(who are "just looking out for your own good". of course.)

Apologies for my loquaciousness..... my sig line is "the short version" ;)
 
Last edited:
KevinKohler said:
No, but some of them are CREATED, not born. Nurture vs nature. I believe empathy is learned.
Click to expand...

Empathy (of some level) is innate (minus .0001%, crazies), the amount of it is subject to experience. Can anyone deny having empathy?

Wherever it might come from (biology, God or society), being innate renders it natural (remember: socially natural). Trying to use biology to prove a social construct is losing context. The important thing is innateness. And it can be proven scientifically.
 
ecofarm said:
Empathy (of some level) is innate (minus .0001%, crazies), the amount of it is subject to experience. Can anyone deny having empathy?

Wherever it might come from (biology, God or society), being innate renders it natural (remember: socially natural). Trying to use biology to prove a social construct is losing context. The important thing is innateness. And it can be proven scientifically.
Click to expand...

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.
 
When people talk about "natural rights", they are doing nothing more than rationalizing their belief that "society should be ordered the way I think it should be ordered because it pleases me"

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. All acknowledge that the formation of society involves the concession of (some or all) "natural rights". The real debate is over which ones should and have been conceded. Those who argue against policies based on natural rights are people who have abandoned reality.
 
KevinKohler said:
Empathy is taught. We're not born with it.
Click to expand...

As with most nature vs. nurture debates, it's both. In regard to natural rights, the capacity and universal claim of it demonstrates innateness.


The capacity for empathy seems to be innate, and is evident even in other species — the adult elephant that tried to rescue a baby rhino stuck in the mud despite being charged by its mother, as recounted by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson and Susan McCarthy in “When Elephants Weep” (Delacorte Press, 1995).

Manifestations of empathy often show up early in life, as when a toddler brings a favorite toy or blanket to another child who is injured or in distress. Some experts maintain that infants display empathy when they whimper or cry upon hearing another baby cry.

Children may enter the world with different capacities for empathy, a result of neural connections in the brain. The capacity for empathy may be partly or wholly lacking in disorders like autism and schizophrenia, in which the mind is focused inward.

But in otherwise normal children, the environment in which they are reared can make a big difference in whether empathy is fostered or suppressed. Healthy self-esteem is essential to empathy, so anything that helps children feel good about themselves will also help them recognize and respond effectively to the feelings of others.
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/health/16brod.html?_r=0
 
Before this discussion proceeds any further, it's obvious that we need a definition of what natural law actually is. I'll let Dr. Edward Feser take care of that.

Edward Feser said:
The basic idea is really not all that complicated, and can be understood at least to a first approximation by reference to everyday examples. Everyone knows that it is in the nature of grass to require water and sunlight but not too much heat, and that for that reason it is good for grass to be watered and well lit and bad for it to lack water and sunlight or to be exposed to great heat. Everyone knows that is in the nature of a tree to require soil into which it can sink its roots and from which it can draw water and nutrients, and thus that it is good for a tree so to sink them and bad for it if it is somehow prevented from doing so. Everyone knows that it is in the nature of a squirrel to gather nuts and the like and to dart about in a way that will make it difficult for predators to catch it, and thus good for it to do these things and bad for it if for whatever reason it fails to do them. The natures of these things entail certain ends the realization of which constitutes their flourishing as the kinds of things they are.

. . .

Now, none of these examples involves moral goodness or badness, because morality involves intellect and will, which grass, trees, and squirrels all lack. Rational creatures like ourselves are capable of moral goodness or badness precisely because we do have intellects and wills. The will itself has as its natural end the pursuit of the good, and determining what is in fact good is part of the natural end of the intellect. Morally good action thus involves the will to do what is good for us given our nature, while morally bad action involves willing contrary to what is good for us given our nature. And to the extent that the intellect knows what is good for us we are culpable for these good or bad actions. To will to do what is “natural” for us thus means, in classical natural law theory, something like to will to do what tends toward the realization of the ends which, given our nature, define what it is for us to flourish as the kind of things we are. And to will to do what is “unnatural” thus means something like willing to do what tends toward the frustration of the ends which, given our nature, define what it is for us to flourish as the kind of things we are.
Click to expand...

This blog post would do anyone who is ignorant of natural law a lot of good.

Edward Feser: Whose nature? Which law?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom