I don't believe so, but I am open to the idea of being wrong.

Hello DC:

If I understand what you're asking, the answer is no.

It amazes me that people think they can just write something down in a book, call it a law, and expect people to obey simply because they did that.

The concept of natural law escapes those people. We have some of 'em right here.

excon

Who's interpretation of natural law ? What I see as self evident is not necessarily what Spooner sees . I could say that yes natual law as interpreted by Aquinas is universal or perhaps natual law evolved once John Locke spelled it out... but not Hobbes . Let's not forget the theological differences between Protestants and Catholics over natural law. Is natural law an evolving concept as some believe or is it self evident ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Who's intepretation of natural law

---

Hello again, tom:

Yours.

I've never heard about those guys, nor have I read anything they've got to say about natural law. For sure, the church knows NOTHING about natural law, so you can't listen to them.

Nope. The thing about natural law is, it's natural. People understand it naturally, without help. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out. As a matter of fact, the more genius and religious stuff you to apply to natural law, the more un-natural it becomes.

excon

To extend your argument then what you think is a perfectly correct moral law of state ,because it follows your interpretation of natual law ,I could equally oppose for the same reason . That makes all laws subjective then . How could natual law then be both subjective and universal ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

How could natual law then be both subjective and universal ?

---

Hello again, tom:

It isn't.

You keep thinking there's an interpretation. There isn't. Clearly, if someone interprets it one way, then somebody else could interpret it another.

But, natural law doesn't require ANY interpretation. It's NATURAL. Everybody understands it inherently, without it being interpreted by someone else. It isn't subjective at all.

As an example, even if it was never interpreted for us, we would still understand that murder is wrong - ALL of us understand that - universally.

excon

Hi excon

Tell me, is homosexuality natural or un-natural?

Hello again, DC:

The old nurture or nature debate, huh? We can have that debate another time. However, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.

Because it's natural to leave people alone in their own homes, regardless of who lives there or why they love each other.

It only matters to people who have a church telling them that what these people are doing is wrong. Without the church, nobody would give a hoot.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Who's intepretation of natural law ? What I see as self evident is not necessarily what Spooner sees . I could say that yes natual law as interpreted by Aquinas is universal or perhaps natual law evolved once John Locke spelled it out ....but not Hobbes . Let's not forget the theological differences between Protestants and Catholics over natural law. Is natural law an evolving concept as some believe or is it self evident ?

---

In America we seem to set realism and idealism, or secularism and religion, against one another as if they were mutually exclusive. Yes, Christian moral theology since Thomas Aquinas has argued that whatever is “unrealistic” (hence contrary to natural law) cannot by definition be moral! Hegel put it this way: What is realistic is real and what is real is realistic. Applied to government, this means that to expect utopian results from diplomacy or war will result in immoral consequences. In application: It is better to say that you are fighting for Iraqi oil than to say that you are “fighting Evil” when you really mean that you believe you have a right to the oil. Because you would be fighting an unjust war if you believed anything less than this.

Excon
That is not where I intended to go; just because homosexuality is immoral, religiously speaking, it does not follow that it should be treated by the government as unacceptable I. e. in public schools. The point: secularism and religion are not mutually exclusive.

To answer excon's response ;it is wrong to kill unjustly . Re : Iraq according to just war principle, the ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. With that premise fighting a war of liberation although perhaps utopian is also moral.

Hello again, tom:

I didn't say kill. I said murder. There's a qualitative difference between the two. Nobody would say killing in the defense of a nation or your family or your tribe is wrong.

Murder, on the other hand, is wrong. It always has been wrong and always will be wrong. We've always known that to be the case and we always will. We knew it before we even had language to describe it. That's why it's a natural law.

Really, this is a lot easier than you guys are making it.

excon

Tom

The most likely thing we have done is create 3 different countries out of Iraq. This may or may not be a good thing for future generations there. As Winston Churchill observed, “The high belief in the perfection of man is appropriate in a man of the cloth but not in a prime minister." The part of the “Just War Principle you left out is: just war can only be waged as a last resort.

The Bush premise of premption says that the "last resort" in an era of WMD may be too late. I would argue that he tried to get Saddam to comply with the various UN resolutions and cease fire agreement before he authorized the invasion . Water under the bridge . Even if Iraq subdivided it would be better off than under the jackboot sadist dictator that ran them . At least the people are returning to what appears to me to be their preferred way of living . But I would not discount the nationalism that has developed since the days of Lawrence .

Why would it be better to say we are fighting for Iraqi oil and how would that turn it into a more just war ? Are you saying the realpolitik or pragmatism is morally superior to idealism like liberation ?

So, by definition he failed to adhere to the “Just War” principle. But as you say, that's water under the bridge, but never the less an example of a failure to act on moral principle I. e. Natural Law.

What I'm saying is that if it were in Fact true that we were fighting for Iraqi oil (That is to say, stability in the area, so as not to disrupt the flow of oil from the region) that is what should be said… there is no virtue in stupidity or dishonesty, however lofty one's motive.

I'm not quite sure how we are interpreting "natural law" in this context. I am having trouble with DC's explanation. Could someone help me out, with small words and simple examples? Once I understand that, I'll get more involved with this conversation. I'm sure I have an opinion... when do I not?

Elliot

Hello Elliot:

I'll try to help. See, it's like I said. I don't think you have to interpret anything. If you try, you'll get screwed up. You're the kind of guy who thinks that if you wanted to make safety pins illegal, all you have to do is make a law, and that's that.

But, the fact is, in the "natural" world, things aren't illegal. Behavior is. Nobody started making things illegal until recently. That should be your first clue that it isn't natural to do so.

Nope, natural law is something that we accept naturally. I used the example of murder before. Maybe that wasn't simple enough for you. How about robbery, rape and assault? Those are things that have been around a while. Those are things that we know are wrong and always have known are wrong. We don't need anyone to interpret that for us. If we needed interpretation, I'd think we weren't talking about natural law, because natural law doesn't need any interpreting.

I don't know. Do you get it yet? Probably not. Illegal immigration wouldn't be on that list. Possessing marijuana wouldn't be on that list. Outlawing gay marriage wouldn't be on that list. Prostitution wouldn't be on that list. Indeed, crimes without victims wouldn't be on that list.

excon

excon,

See my response to this here, in #44.

Elliot

Elliot
You and the great majority believe that morality is about living according to the rules religion has laid out when in fact it is about 'Just' actions. My use of the term moral was in the sense that it has to do with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character; just as it is defined.