How does one determine natural law?

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

(A continuation of the ACLU thread, but feel free to put in anything that strikes you about the topic.)

 

[Malone1234]

Well Natural Law, as proposed by John Locke in his "Second Treatise on Government" is basically this. Preserve mankind.

As he explains it, this consists of doing two things.
1. Above all, preserve yourself. (meaning thrive as much as possible)
2. Leave other people's "stuff" alone. (do not steal their private property, or commit agression against them in any way)

The second point basically puts a limit on the first one, and at the same time, allows for the preservation of everyone by everyone. So to summarize, Natural Law means that each person should strive to thrive as much as possible without committing agression against anyone else.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

What about stem cell research?

 

[MoonlessNight]

I have heard it summed up in the following two statements:

1. Do not encroach on others.
2. Keep one's word.

These are things that everyone can agree are moral, so they are most likely natural law. And from these two statements many things can be determined to be moral or immoral. For example murder is immoral, since it encroaches on others (in a drastic way), and fraud is immoral since it is breaking one's word.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I have heard it summed up in the following two statements:

1. Do not encroach on others.
2. Keep one's word.

These are things that everyone can agree are moral, so they are most likely natural law. And from these two statements many things can be determined to be moral or immoral. For example murder is immoral, since it encroaches on others (in a drastic way), and fraud is immoral since it is breaking one's word.

But how do we enter postmodernism into this equation? We live in an age of situation ethics, where the ethics of a situation is determined by the individual interpretation of a situation.

 

[MoonlessNight]

But how do we enter postmodernism into this equation? We live in an age of situation ethics, where the ethics of a situation is determined by the individual interpretation of a situation.

There is value in the theory, but the flaw comes in the assumption that the ethics of the situation change based on one's perceptions. The truth is that it is only through our perception and reasoning that we can determine what the morals of a situation, but however we determine the morals, there is still an objective morality to the situation. Situational ethics are very valuble because they remind us that absolute laws don't work for all situations, and that we have to adapt the truths that we know to the situation rather than trying to fit them in, like a square peg in a round hole. But the conclusion that since we can't make absolute generalizations about morality there are no moral absolutes is ridculous (which is more moral relativism than situational ethics btw).

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

There is value in the theory, but the flaw comes in the assumption that the ethics of the situation change based on one's perceptions. The truth is that it is only through our perception and reasoning that we can determine what the morals of a situation, but however we determine the morals, there is still an objective morality to the situation. Situational ethics are very valuble because they remind us that absolute laws don't work for all situations, and that we have to adapt the truths that we know to the situation rather than trying to fit them in, like a square peg in a round hole. But the conclusion that since we can't make absolute generalizations about morality there are no moral absolutes is ridculous (which is more moral relativism than situational ethics btw).

This is an interesting idea, and I agree on the presence of absolutes. The question I have is, in the presence of absolutes, what would be an example of a nonworkable solution, and how would it be solved? Truths cannot be altered, because that is the nature of truths, but perceptions can. Do we alter our perceptions to the absolute? If not, what do we do with a disagreeable absolute? And whose perception would dictate? Would not reason bring us back to the absolute, since it is truth?

 

[MoonlessNight]

This is an interesting idea, and I agree on the presence of absolutes. The question I have is, in the presence of absolutes, what would be an example of a nonworkable solution, and how would it be solved? Truths cannot be altered, because that is the nature of truths, but perceptions can. Do we alter our perceptions to the absolute? If not, what do we do with a disagreeable absolute? And whose perception would dictate? Would not reason bring us back to the absolute, since it is truth?

I think that all of these questions are getting at that human reasoning is by it's nature imperfect. If it was imperfect philosophy would be trivial and obvious to everyone, but sadly this is not the case. Hopefully through reason we will find what is moral in a given situation, but we can make mistakes.

The only real solutions that I can see to this problem are the solutions that we use in other areas of knowledge, the most important of which is to welcome critcism and learn from one's mistakes. For example, consider that for a large part of human history slavery was considered moral. If we had left it at that, or simply decided that since everyone accepted it it must be true we would never have progressed. However, through the criticisms of a few it became clear that slavery was indeed a moral act. We will always make mistakes in determining morality, but it is essential to welcome criticism so that those mistakes can be found. Our reasoning will hopefully lead us towards the truth eventually, but only if we never stop striving for truth.

As for who should decide what things are moral and what things are not, I believe that this is ultimately the responsibility of the individual. There are informed authorities on moralities (ideally clergy and judges would be examples of this, but it's sadly not always the case), and their opinions should be given weight, but should not be held as truth simply because of their source. The individual must weigh these opinions along with their own reasons to come up with the answer they think is most likely.

Of course that brings up problems to whether a society where all individuals were encouraged to make the final decision on what they thought is ultimately moral would work at all, but that's not what I want to talk about. Ideally it would be the concern of the individual.

 

[tcampen]

But how do we enter postmodernism into this equation? We live in an age of situation ethics, where the ethics of a situation is determined by the individual interpretation of a situation.

I'm not sure you posed "situational eithics" correctly there. The term refers to it depending on the particular, individual situation for whether a certain act is moral or not. For example, one could take the absolutist approach that taking a human life is always wrong. But the situationalist would recognize that the taking of life would be justified in defending your life against an unjust attack. Is individual interpretation part of it? Sure, for the one personally facing the circumstances, but we as reasonable people can all recognize how situations can change what would otherwise be immoral behavior into moral behavior.

In fact, you can probably see that no one is really a moral absolutist about everything. Certainly some things appear to have absolute characterstics, such as rape is always wrong. But, for the most part, claims of absolute morality is really just the absolutes of a particular situation, and not general at all as true absolutes would be. If that makes any sense.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Moonless Night, I agree-man is imperfect. This is very true. I would advance it a step farther, though, and say that we cannot arrive at the absolute truth without knowing where to find it. Although there may be some who are better map readers than others, the question is, where is the destination? So I think the first step would be to determine the source of absolute truth.

T,

The term refers to it depending on the particular, individual situation for whether a certain act is moral or not.

Yup, that's exactly what I was saying. But this would still have to be interpreted by man, wouldn't it? It assumes there are no absolutes. SO this would mean that man would be the determoiner of what is correct. However, we know there *are* absolutes; the premise behind situation ethics is that these absolutes are unacceptable, and that's the reason advocates of this movemnet prefer to analyze ethics on a case-by-case basis. But...whi has the truth?

That's why I think modernists and postmodernists will never be able to agree on natural law.

Sure, for the one personally facing the circumstances, but we as reasonable people can all recognize how situations can change what would otherwise be immoral behavior into moral behavior.

I don't think it's a matter of being reasonable people, I think it's a matter of being emotional people, and the two are not the same. I believe absolutes are absolutes, but I also believe people do not make clear enough distinctions within absolutes. For example, killing is wrong. This is absolute. Killing in a war zone during a time of war is not wrong. This is not the end of the absolute, rather, it is also an absolute.

The difference between situation ethics and well-defined absolutes is simple: Who makes the rules.

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste all,

natural law? you mean like gravity, electromagnestism and the rest?

 

[burrow_owl]

Natural law is something along the lines of : there is a human nature, or divine plan, or a rationality to the world - natural law theories explicate the basis (be it divine, humanistic, or rationalist), and then tells us that we are supposed to act in accordance with that design or basis. Dharma is a good example of a divine natural law theory: it's god's law that different humans have different roles in society, and we are called upon to act according to our Dharma.

Quick note on situational ethics: as best I can tell, it's not about whether or not there is an objective right or wrong (although it looks like Fletcher, the originator of the theory, certainly believed in objective morality). Rather, it's a metaethical, semantic claim about moral propositions. Because general rules like 'killing is wrong' can't govern every single killing (since there are clearly times when killing is OK - self-defense, for example), the statement 'killing is wrong' is basically meaningless. Objectivity and subjectivity don't even enter the picture, according to the situationist, because these overly-general moral propositions are, literallly, meaningless: they aren't true or false because they don't contain any truth-content that could be proven or disproven.

The best reading of situationism is that only within a given context does it make sense to say that this particular course of action is right, and that one is wrong. So it should be clear that there can be objectivist situationists and relativist situationists (Fletcher was the former, since love constituted an objective and absolute good, against which particular actions could be measured).

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste burrow_owl,


that's an interesting interpetation of the term Dharma... in point of fact... i can't recall if i've ever seen it expounded in this manner.

do you mind if i inquire about the source for this understanding of Dharma?

 

[tcampen]

I don't think it's a matter of being reasonable people, I think it's a matter of being emotional people, and the two are not the same. I believe absolutes are absolutes, but I also believe people do not make clear enough distinctions within absolutes. For example, killing is wrong. This is absolute. Killing in a war zone during a time of war is not wrong. This is not the end of the absolute, rather, it is also an absolute.

Your example of "killing is absolutely wrong, except in a war zone" is a blatent contradiction of the concept of absolute. It is a perfect example of applying situational morality. See how the morality of killing changed as the situation changed? It's really quite simple.

The difference between situation ethics and well-defined absolutes is simple: Who makes the rules.

Well-defined absolutes only exist on a very small scale among those who happen to believe exactly the same thing - if that's even possible. There may be a billion christians that all agree God makes absolute rules for all people to follow, but such an assertion is meaningless unless we can determine with absolute certainty what those absolute rules are. Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement among those billion christians as to what those rules are, and majority opinion doesn't win the day when the rules come from God. Sure, absolute rules may exist despite our inablity to figure out what they are, but even if so, what's the point? The devout Muslim will never convince you his idea of God's absolute rules are more accurate than yours, and the same with you back to him. Who's right?

This is why a more reasoned approach that finds right and wrong independent of any one person's concept of a supernatural rule giver is necessary in a pluralistic society and a secular government.

Futhermore, the bible itself is full of situational eithics, the most profound of which is with God himself. For example, killing a healthy newborn child is absolutely wrong, right? But God himself personally killed countless such newborns. Was that also wrong? Apparently not, because it depends on the situation. If you or I were to kill healthy newborn babies, for any reason we came up with, it would still be wrong. But when the situation changes, and God does the killing, its not wrong at all. Absolute rules apply to the act itself, not who performs the act. If who performs the act changes an immoral act into a moral act, that is exactly situational morality.

We can also look at the hundreds of commandments to the Jewish people in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) that were rules handled down by God. Weren't these absolute rules only to apply to Jews? Situational. Didn't the arrival of Jesus fulfill the first covenant and replace the Jewish Law with the New Testiment? Situational again. We can go on forever.

 

[burrow_owl]

garnered from various sources. Whenever I write a paper as I was today, I start thinking about the opening of the Bhagavad-Gita, cuz much like Arjuna doesn't wanna battle, i don't wanna start writing. But, if Arjuna can find it in him to follow his dharma as a kshatriya, i can write this blasted paper. hence the notion of dharma as duty according to station in life. Like so much of sanskrit, it's an incredibly polysemic word (lots of meanings and semantic resonance), but I think duty is a reasonably good translation of one of its primary meanings.

And i did finish that paper, thankfully.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Your example of "killing is absolutely wrong, except in a war zone" is a blatent contradiction of the concept of absolute. It is a perfect example of applying situational morality. See how the morality of killing changed as the situation changed? It's really quite simple.

No, it's not. An absolute doesn't mean there is no such thing as variables. An absolute simply means that a given set of conditions always have the same value.

If you have water sitting in a pot, is that water a liquid? Does the addition of heat alter the situation at all? It's another variable. So would you now say, after observing what happens to boilong water, that it is no longer a liquid? Or would you say there are no absolutes in science?

Well-defined absolutes only exist on a very small scale among those who happen to believe exactly the same thing - if that's even possible.

That would mean they don't exist at all. If they only exist for people who *believe* a same way, they are not absolutes. But we've already adressed this.

There may be a billion christians that all agree God makes absolute rules for all people to follow, but such an assertion is meaningless unless we can determine with absolute certainty what those absolute rules are.

Well, I see hwat you're saying, and although I wouldn't articulate it the same way, I do agreee that we have to know those rules. Absolutely. It doesn't make the absolutes worthless if people do not know what they are; it makes their lack of knowledge worthless. Gold is still gold. It is still worth the same whether it is in the ground undiscovered, or recently dug up. The value does not change. The difference is, the one who discovers it may now receive the reward. The absolute doesn't change. THe person's life does.

Unfortunately, there is wide disagreement among those billion christians as to what those rules are, and majority opinion doesn't win the day when the rules come from God.

Doesn't matter. Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Doersn't matter how many agree on whether a nugget is real or false. What matters is, is the nugget real? Those who do not know it will not receive the reward of it because of their disbelief. They will cast it aside like pyrite, not because it wasnt' gold, but because they failed to discover its true worth. What matters is the truth. Not the millions who do not receive it. Jesus said only a few would ever find it. And He's right, isn't He?

Sure, absolute rules may exist despite our inablity to figure out what they are, but even if so, what's the point? The devout Muslim will never convince you his idea of God's absolute rules are more accurate than yours, and the same with you back to him. Who's right?

That's why we don't go to man , but to God. The Christian faith is the only one that offers atonement for sin. And in our hearts, we all know we have it and need atonement. That's why we feel guilt. Because we have a natural sense of right and wrong. And if we needed any more proof, we can see the immorality behind Sharia law.

This is why a more reasoned approach that finds right and wrong independent of any one person's concept of a supernatural rule giver is necessary in a pluralistic society and a secular government.

Okay, this is a modernist view. Better than postmodern, but we still have this problem: we're still placing expertise in the hands of the ones who do not have it: man. Even reason can be tainted by sin. The only One who knows the truth is God.

Futhermore, the bible itself is full of situational eithics, the most profound of which is with God himself.

I'd think this one through carefully if I were you. This is an affective statement, rather than cognitive. While affect is a tremendously useful tool, it isn't qualified to take the place of cognition.

For example, killing a healthy newborn child is absolutely wrong, right? But God himself personally killed countless such newborns. Was that also wrong?

What you're missing is the distinctions. Absolutes are not the lack of variables, but the same set of variables each time should produce the same results. And one major distinction is abortion versus direct orders from God to eliminate a nation He no longer wants to exist. The difference is authority, In abortion, man takes this authority. In the governing of nations, God did. And look at all the car bombings in Israel because of one child, Ishmael.

Apparently not, because it depends on the situation. If you or I were to kill healthy newborn babies, for any reason we came up with, it would still be wrong. But when the situation changes, and God does the killing, its not wrong at all.

God is the authority. I understand you find this distasteful, but accepting this gives us blessings far greater than anything we lose by living life the way we want to. Doing things our way leads to spiritual death.

Absolute rules apply to the act itself, not who performs the act.

By what reasoning?

If who performs the act changes an immoral act into a moral act, that is exactly situational morality.

Do you have the authority to interpret law? Does a judge? Is that situation ethics, or is it a variable to an absolute? It may be valuable to determine the difference between these two things. Laws and higher laws. Governance under set conditions. What you are arguing for is anarchy, whether or not you realize it.

We can also look at the hundreds of commandments to the Jewish people in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) that were rules handled down by God. Weren't these absolute rules only to apply to Jews? Situational. Didn't the arrival of Jesus fulfill the first covenant and replace the Jewish Law with the New Testiment? Situational again. We can go on forever.

I think you need to sort out the difference between situation ethics and variables to an absolute.

 

[vajradhara]

If you have water sitting in a pot, is that water a liquid? Does the addition of heat alter the situation at all? It's another variable. So would you now say, after observing what happens to boilong water, that it is no longer a liquid? Or would you say there are no absolutes in science?


.

Namaste Whitehorse,

in science.. it's called H2O and not water. water is a descritpion of a state of H2O. whether in steam form or ice form, for science, it's still H2O.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Namaste Whitehorse,

in science.. it's called H2O and not water. water is a descritpion of a state of H2O. whether in steam form or ice form, for science, it's still H2O.

That statement would only hold H2O if you don't care what state it's in. And, the exact point I was making is it matters what state it's in. Next time you go to a restaurant, you can test this theory by asking the waitress for a glass of steam while you're deciding.

Be that as it may, I'm missing how you're applying this to the distinction between variables in absolutes and situation ethics, which was how I applied ny illustration.

 

[Blissman]

"We can also look at the hundreds of commandments to the Jewish people in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) that were rules handled down by God. Weren't these absolute rules only to apply to Jews? Situational. Didn't the arrival of Jesus fulfill the first covenant and replace the Jewish Law with the New Testiment? Situational again. We can go on forever"

This is an interesting point. We can look in Romans and find perhaps more cloudiness than clarity. Did the first Covenant release man from the Ten Commandments? For example, if it is immoral to kill, then would Christ forgive a murder who had repented?
If so, this causes a problem. God's laws (such as that of morality) will not work to prevent murder. The object of having a law is to prevent someone from committing the unlawful act. If sins can be forgiven, where is there any guidance on how to act properly for any and all laws? It would become a confusion of 'maybe I can, maybe I cannot' do this or that. If you are asked to be a judge of yourself, and you are wrong, how can you be punished if you err by reason of the fact that you are a human being, and as such, are imperfect? Laws can function when either someone is restrained or
of someone makes a judgement. Law is absolute. People are not. Life is a continuous process of learning. In life, people will make mistakes, even terrible ones. There is a difference between a mistake, an unintended consequence and anything else. There is also a matter of willfully committing an act (assumiming that the person was not insane and had no idea of reality) - malice - and a failure to do something (such as failing to close a door, when you knew that you should have closed the door). An accident is beyond the control of the person responsible for it. A malicious act is evil. An oversight is a failure because a human being is not perfect. Does God forgive evil? I don't know, as I am not The Lord God. Perhaps He does not judge evil the same as a human failing (which is where I can best see the concept of forgiveness - you can't be punished because it is impossible for you not to willfully act to have changed things). Unfortunately, this is not reflected in man's law, nor often in our behavior.
Where does this leave us in 'natural law' v absolute law? I believe that there are some things which are absolute under the situation. That is, absolute law has provisions for situations. It is wrong to kill. Except in self defense. ANY law, be that of man or God,
can be broken if the sole purpose is to save a human life. This is an absolute law.
Men differ over our interpretation, and we differ over the laws themselves. The laws of man differ over both. The laws of God, however presents us with a problem. We need a set of absolutes, and we need laws, if you will, over our interpretations. There are countless arguments of the interpretations. There are countless many faiths each claiming they alone hold the sole answer to the truth. There are also countless people within a faith who also claim to be the sole arbiter of their own faith.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

"We can also look at the hundreds of commandments to the Jewish people in the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) that were rules handled down by God. Weren't these absolute rules only to apply to Jews? Situational. Didn't the arrival of Jesus fulfill the first covenant and replace the Jewish Law with the New Testiment? Situational again. We can go on forever"

This is an interesting point. We can look in Romans and find perhaps more cloudiness than clarity. Did the first Covenant release man from the Ten Commandments? For example, if it is immoral to kill, then would Christ forgive a murder who had repented?
If so, this causes a problem.

We were never released from the ten commandments. THey are moral law. I know about the movement that says. "We are not under law, but under grace," but if you read the scriptures with discernment, we were never freed from morality! It's really important to make distinctions.

The immorality of man does not nullify the mercy of God. What does man's character (or lack thereof) have to do with God's? And what do the two have to do with each other, except that man's immorality made God's mercy more necessary, and more beautiful? I hope you're not condemning Him for the only thing that can save us...

God's laws (such as that of morality) will not work to prevent murder. The object of having a law is to prevent someone from committing the unlawful act.

Mmm, not necessarily. God is still sovereign. It's to reveal what sin is, and to reveal the state of our hearts. It was never meant to prevent it.

Romans 7:7-13

7:7What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, F25 except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

7:8But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

7:9For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

7:10And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

7:11For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

7:12Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

7:13Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

If sins can be forgiven, where is there any guidance on how to act properly for any and all laws? It would become a confusion of 'maybe I can, maybe I cannot' do this or that. If you are asked to be a judge of yourself, and you are wrong, how can you be punished if you err by reason of the fact that you are a human being, and as such, are imperfect? Laws can function when either someone is restrained or
of someone makes a judgement.

Through discernment, which comes from God. You're right-we can't do that on our own. We have to first be saved, and then by seeking the Lord and obeying what we know, He puts a spirit of discernment in us.

Law is absolute. People are not. Life is a continuous process of learning. In life, people will make mistakes, even terrible ones. There is a difference between a mistake, an unintended consequence and anything else. There is also a matter of willfully committing an act (assumiming that the person was not insane and had no idea of reality) - malice - and a failure to do something (such as failing to close a door, when you knew that you should have closed the door). An accident is beyond the control of the person responsible for it. A malicious act is evil. An oversight is a failure because a human being is not perfect. Does God forgive evil? I don't know, as I am not The Lord God.

Yes, He does forgive. He forgives through the salvation plan revealed it in His word, through the blood of Jesus Christ. You're right-law is absolute, and we all make mistakes. That's why the gracious offer of salvation is so precious. It's eternal. It's perfect and without fault. God invites all to partake. It would be my privilege to share God's encouragement and comfort with anyone who so wishes to do so.

Perhaps He does not judge evil the same as a human failing (which is where I can best see the concept of forgiveness - you can't be punished because it is impossible for you not to willfully act to have changed things). Unfortunately, this is not reflected in man's law, nor often in our behavior.

I'd like to learn more about what you mean by this; I'm not sure I understand, but I do see it's an important point in your argument.

Where does this leave us in 'natural law' v absolute law? I believe that there are some things which are absolute under the situation. That is, absolute law has provisions for situations. It is wrong to kill. Except in self defense. ANY law, be that of man or God,
can be broken if the sole purpose is to save a human life. This is an absolute law.

In most cases I would agree. Maybe except for cases where the life that is being taken, and justly so, by the government as due puishment for a crime.

Men differ over our interpretation, and we differ over the laws themselves. The laws of man differ over both. The laws of God, however presents us with a problem. We need a set of absolutes, and we need laws, if you will, over our interpretations. There are countless arguments of the interpretations. There are countless many faiths each claiming they alone hold the sole answer to the truth. There are also countless people within a faith who also claim to be the sole arbiter of their own faith.

Agreed. And this is where the human heart comes into play. It's all about motive. For those who want nothing but the truth, they will find it. For those who seek to bend God's will to their own, they will claim to have the truth because of what they *want* to be the truth. And I agree with you that the answer is with God. Nice post.