Natural Law

[packsaddle]

Horizon, around these parts we'd also make a feast of those tasty testicles. Mmmmmmm.

Since this rather humorous thread is taking the turn that it seems to be taking, I'll submit this delicious article that just appeared in the NYTimes. The author is from Idaho so don't worry about cooties. It is entitled: Men, Who Needs Them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/men-who-needs-them.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120825

 

From the article: "Think about your own history. Your life as an egg actually started in your mothers developing ovary, before she was born; you were wrapped in your mothers fetal body as it developed within your grandmother."

and later,

"By the time you were born your mother had contributed six to eight pounds of your weight. Then as a parting gift, she swathed you in billions of bacteria from her birth canal and groin that continue to protect your skin, digestive system and general health. In contrast, your fathers 3.3 picograms of DNA comes out to less than one pound of male contribution since the beginning of Homo sapiens 107 billion babies ago."

 

I like this guy!

[Peregrinator]

Natural law isn't about simply what occurs in nature (and, in any case, as SP points out, animal behavior is a poor guide for human behavior -- will anyone argue that it is not wrong for humans to engage in cannibalism or infanticide? Because animals do that sort of thing) but more about whether creatures act according to their nature. It's the nature of lions to kill their rivals, but one can't use that fact to prove that such acts are "natural" for humans. Likewise, the fact that some animals engage in homosexual behavior (and I frankly think that the evidence for such, especially in the wild, is scanty) can't be used to show that such behavior is natural for human beings.

[BSA24]

I'm sorry, but natural is exactly about what occurs in nature and happens naturally. And animal homosexuality is a proven fact. Any kid who raises mice or gerbils can attest to it. The line of thought in this thread is disturbing because it is starting to smell like theology pretending to be science.

 

If it were not natural for there to be homosexuals, there would not be any homosexuals. Yes, murder is natural. Insanity is natural. Anything that happens is natural because it is what happens.

 

That doesn't mean that anything in nature makes for a good society, though. Our sun exploding is natural, but we'd rather prevent it.

 

Homosexuality has no negative consequences for our society which are not invented excuses with no evidence behind them.

 

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

BSA24 has obviously made his choice. He is welcome to it.

[Peregrinator]

I'm sorry, but natural is exactly about what occurs in nature and happens naturally.

 

Yes, but that is not what the natural law is concerned with. The natural law is concerned not simply with whether something is "natural," but whether creatures act according to their nature. Murder is "natural," but the natural law condemns it. A man who commits murder is not acting according to his nature.

[NJCubScouter]

Murder is "natural," but the natural law condemns it. A man who commits murder is not acting according to his nature.

 

Can anyone reconcile those two sentences?

 

I sure can't.

 

And that is a good example of why I think "natural law", as a means of trying to justify one policy or law or another, is bull-you-know-what. It's really just the same as saying "in my opinion", but gives a false sense that the opinion comes from nature, rather than from the person with the opinion.

[Beavah]

Can anyone reconcile those two sentences?

 

Sure. It was BSA24's bit that didn't make any sense.

 

Natural law is just a form of natural philosophy, eh? It says that there are natural rules which govern human relationships and human societies. Just like other forms of natural philosophy, the claim is that those rules are knowable from a careful study of nature combined with rational intellect. It is da ethical philosophy that mirrors science in some ways.

 

That doesn't mean da rules are obvious or don't require careful study and some degree of rigor. Gravitational relativity isn't obvious, and we see all kinds of folks claim "science" for things like scientific creationism which aren't science at all. Just like we see folks who don't really grok natural law make spurious ethical claims on that basis, or dismiss it entirely without any real understandin' or study. Nuthin' stops humans from being irrational.

 

So yah, sure, murder exists in nature. Particularly " in crowded or undernourished conditions" as BSA24 points out about another phenomenon. We would say, however, that murder is contrary to da natural law, because when a society tolerates murder, that tolerance is toxic to da long term health of individuals and society. We've conducted that experiment far too often, always with da same result. Da conclusion is accessible by reason and observation alone, without any need for faith.

 

As are da natural law "virtues" like Justice, and Prudence, and Temperance. Much public health in da U.S. is affected by (lack of) Temperance, eh? The need for temperance and da consequences for smokin' and overeatin' and such is clear, but just because the observed data and reason are there does not mean everyone will avoid bein' self-destructive.

 

Now, us faithful folks wouldn't stop at natural law, eh? We also believe in divine positive law, and divine virtues which can't be arrived at through reason and observation. In fact, in many ways da Scout Oath and Law are based on divine rather than natural law. But for murder? Nah, that may be natural, but it's contrary to natural law.

 

Beavah

 

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah, my point about "natural law" is that it is invoked to justify anything, so it is really not worth much more than "in my opinion." If it were applied in a consistent way, it might have some value. But it you have your "natural law" with certain elements, and someone else has their "natural law" with some different elements, what good is it? And if you are referring to me as one of those who merely "dismisses" it, that's not the case. I have heard and read more than enough about it to conclude that it isn't really useful.

 

Murder is a good example. I don't need "natural law" to tell me that murder is wrong. For that matter, I don't need a book that tells me that God issued a commandment against murder, to know that murder is wrong. I sure don't need a recitation of natural law that tells me that "Murder is 'natural,' but the natural law condemns it." That tells me absolutely nothing.

[AZMike]

WasE61: "The Catholic Church did not formally embrace Aquina's writings as theological doctrine for some 600 years AFTER his death.

 

I submit, that this adoption is more of a populist acceptance by the Church due to social-political pressures, rather than some divine revelation. "

 

Say what now?

 

St. Thomas Aquinas's writings (which are many, and varied, and embrace far more than theories of Natural Law) were formally adopted well before the 600 year mark. The Church tends to move very slowly on issues that impact doctrine, and there was a great deal of discussion and disagreement (even within St. Aquinas's own order) for a short time during and after hi death, but the intellectual brilliance of his works, such as the Catena Aurea and the Summa Theologica, was recognized early on and within his own lifetime by the Church's hierarchy, including the popes, the universities, and the studia of his own order - this wasn't a popular uprising of belief against a Church hierarchy. The Church would not have considered his views as divine revelation in any case, nor would Aquinas have claimed them as such. They would have been evaluated on how well they explicated existing revelation and the Deposit of Faith.

 

3 of his works were written on the orders of Pope Urban IV, so it's not like he was working outside the box of Catholic theology.

 

Aquinas died in 1274. By 1279, the Dominican Order had condemned all those who spoke irreverently of his writings. The seminaries and universities (all religious at that time) accepted the Summa as an official textbook to be used in the study of philosophy and the formation of faith among the laity and the clergy.

 

As the authoritative Catholic Encyclopedia states,

 

"In every one of the general councils held since his death St. Thomas has been singularly honoured. At the Council of Lyons [1274] his book "Contra errores Graecorum" was used with telling effect against the Greeks. In later disputes, before and during the Council of Florence [1431], John of Montenegro, the champion of Latin orthodoxy, found St. Thomas's works a source of irrefragable arguments. The "Decretum pro Armenis" (Instruction for the Armenians), issued by the authority of that council, is taken almost verbatim from his treatise, "De fidei articulis et septem sacramentis" (see Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 695). "In the Councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence, and the Vatican", writes Leo XIII (Encyclical "Aeterni Patris"), "one might almost say that Thomas took part in and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics, and Rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results."

 

St. Thomas Aquinas's works were so esteemed and accepted by the Church that at the Council of Trent [1545, just 271 years after the death of Aquinas], the Summa Theologica was laid on the altar by order of the conclave along with the Bible and the decrees of the popes, "from whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration" for the Council. No other Doctor of the Church has been so honored. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was issued for the training. instruction, and reference of priests in matters of theology, was a popularization of the Summa Theologica.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[Eagledad]

>>Beavah, my point about "natural law" is that it is invoked to justify anything, so it is really not worth much more than "in my opinion." If it were applied in a consistent way, it might have some value. But it you have your "natural law" with certain elements, and someone else has their "natural law" with some different elements, what good is it? And if you are referring to me as one of those who merely "dismisses" it, that's not the case. I have heard and read more than enough about it to conclude that it isn't really useful.

[packsaddle]

Could you guys enlarge a little more about the "right and natural use of human genitalia for procreation" as "the cornerstone of human sexuality"?

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Packsaddle,

 

 

As I understand BSA policy, we aren't supposed to go into detail on those issues.

 

 

In compliance with BSA policies, I'd like to encourage you to ask your Mom or Dad about the birds and the bees...

[packsaddle]

Hi SeattlePioneer,

They're both dead. Bummer, huh?

 

Remember, YOU were the one who erected the concept in the first place. And I must say that compared to the turgid responses you sometimes give, that one was rather flaccid.

There's nothing wrong with discussing the topic, though. I have several books devoted to nothing but genitalia. They range from a glossary of insect genitalia (no lie, and I mean it is THICK and fairly engorged with terms and descriptions), to an interesting history book of similar phallic proportions - in fact that is its very topic.

 

But since you responded and since it was your post to which I referred, I'm particularly interested in that 'cornerstone' reference: what does that mean?

[Peregrinator]

I don't need "natural law" to tell me that murder is wrong.

 

What tells you that murder is wrong?

[Beavah]

Murder is a good example. I don't need "natural law" to tell me that murder is wrong. For that matter, I don't need a book that tells me that God issued a commandment against murder, to know that murder is wrong.

 

Yah, I reckon that's exactly the point, eh? Yeh just made da argument for natural law.

 

A book that tells yeh God's will yeh need in order to learn and understand divine positive law. Natural law yeh are able to perceive yourself, from da nature of things and of human society. Just like da law of gravity.

 

Now, it is also true that just because we are able to perceive natural law doesn't mean that we always get it right on the details. Our perceptions of gravity weren't exact until Newton. Study and listening to others, especially when there has been broad consensus, helps us to perceive natural law properly. Just as it does with da natural law of gravity.

 

And, too, we have our own human desires, which can run contrary to natural law, eh? The desire to have our own way. The desire to rule. So we have seen humans justify in their own minds all kinds of things contrary to da natural law against murder than most of us perceive clearly. Just as we see people's culture sometimes blind 'em to da natural laws of medicine, or people's desire for wealth blind 'em to the natural effects of pollution.

 

Beavah