Originally posted by Colettihow do jesus cult followers know? Do you get it all from the bible?
How did they know?
Explain (in simple terms because I'm an idiot) how was it that the church allowed slavery within its morality for many centuries yet now the church would oppose slavery? How was it that many US independant churches segregated congregations on racial grounds yet now the church would oppose segregation?
There is no unchanging rock of christian morality; it bends with the wind and flows with the tide.
(I realised the church has been an opinion former on moral issues)
Originally posted by lucifershammerThis doesn't follow. Just because humans have some natural property, it doesn't follow that this property is always and perfectly accessible via introspection and reason. Catholic Natural Law theorists often claim that the moral law is written into the hearts of men, but they are not committed to the claim that in all circumstances, no matter their complexity, we can infallibly determine what the moral law requires. We may be able to determine general principles (e.g., we ought minimize unnecessary suffering, we ought respect the freedom of others to set their own ends when those ends do not involve unduly harming another, and hence we ought not deceive or coerce, we ought aid others in the satisfaction of their ends when such aid requires little of us, etc.). We may determine general character traits we ought to cultivate, like compassion, generosity, honesty, temperance, and so on, even though there will be situations where we are conflicted (e.g., sometimes it is compassionate not to be brutally honest). If you and Coletti want from secular ethics a proof that starts from self evident premises and proceeds deductively; if you want a decision procedure or algorithm for solving ethical dilemmas, then you are asking more than even your ethical theory can provide. In this regard, you are being disingenuous.
However, if Natural Law is purely a matter of human nature (as, for instance, the fact that human beings have 23 pairs of chromosomes), then any human being using human reason must be able to derive the precepts of Natural Law. Furth ...[text shortened]... roperly/correctly he must arrive at the precepts of Natural Law.
EDIT: I'll get back to your and Coletti's previous questions later today. I'm a bit pressed for time right now.
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf your argument is that Natural Law is a "human convention" because humans are the ones who ascertain it, then your point is meaningless as who else would? I do not accept your premise that because Natural Moral Law is a product of the way humans are (a physical reality) that there is any difference between it and the Law of Gravity which also describes physical reality. We can't see gravity but we can observe its effects; we can't see the Natural Moral Law but we can observe its effects. There is no difference.
I'm not trying to degrade the argument into a semantic one - I asked for a definition precisely so that it wouldn't degrade into one. (I admit that my arguments can seem like semantic quibbles on several occasions - that is never my intention and I apologise for such instances.)
Aquinas' definition of Natural Law is "the participation of the et ...[text shortened]... was the one using reason incorrectly. Ditto for Joe Blow. This is the point Coletti is raising.
Coletti's point is no more valid as a criticism of Natural Law than it is as a criticism of Divine Law; the fact that men looking at the same things do not 100% agree on the precepts of either moral law does not invalidate the existence of moral law in toto. The fact that men do agree on most general moral principles (i.e. it's not nice to kill or rob or rape) and that this shows cross-culturally and throughout time suggests that there is an underlying moral law. Then the question becomes only where it comes from. My question is: why believe it comes from something we don't know exists (God) rather than from something we know exists (human reason)?
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought you were claiming that the moral law derives from human nature, not human reason, and that human reason is the tool we use to discern the moral law.
My question is: why believe it comes from something we don't know exists (God) rather than from something we know exists (human reason)?
Originally posted by bbarrI regard that as a quibble; the ability to reason is arguably the most important part of our nature. I don't know how to meaningfully seperate the two.
I thought you were claiming that the moral law derives from human nature, not human reason, and that human reason is the tool we use to discern the moral law.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not a quibble. The idea is that creatures with radically different natures than our own might nevertheless have the ability to reason as we do. A species of radically individualistic creatures, for instance, may not discern via reason that they are obligated to aid others in need, but merely to refrain from harming them directly (kinda like libertarians). We do discern such obligations, owing in part to our deeply social nature and to the fact that we are not robustly self-sufficient.
I regard that as a quibble; the ability to reason is arguably the most important part of our nature. I don't know how to meaningfully seperate the two.
Originally posted by bbarr
This doesn't follow. Just because humans have some natural property, it doesn't follow that this property is always and perfectly accessible via introspection and reason.
So, in addition to the two conditions I listed above, we can add a third:
(3) One of the two (who disagree on a moral matter) are unable to access Natural Law, or access it perfectly.
Catholic Natural Law theorists often claim that the moral law is written into the hearts of men, but they are not committed to the claim that in all circumstances, no matter their complexity, we can infallibly determine what the moral law requires. We may be able to determine general principles (e.g., we ought minimize unnecessary suffering, we ought respect the freedom of others to set their own ends when those ends do not involve unduly harming another, and hence we ought not deceive or coerce, we ought aid others in the satisfaction of their ends when such aid requires little of us, etc.). We may determine general character traits we ought to cultivate, like compassion, generosity, honesty, temperance, and so on, even though there will be situations where we are conflicted (e.g., sometimes it is compassionate not to be brutally honest).
Incidentally, this is the scenario I outlined to Skipper (I think) earlier in this thread. 🙂
If you and Coletti want from secular ethics a proof that starts from self evident premises and proceeds deductively; if you want a decision procedure or algorithm for solving ethical dilemmas, then you are asking more than even your ethical theory can provide. In this regard, you are being disingenuous.
Actually, no. I'll talk about my own ethical theory here:
1. Catholic teachings on Natural Law does not require that human beings infallibly interpret Natural Law because Natural Law is not the only source of correct moral action. In fact, Aquinas argues that this is precisely why human beings need (and have) Divine Law.
2. The existence of Divine Law or Revelation also makes it unnecessary that the premises of Catholic ethics be self-evident.
3. Further, a decision procedure does exist in Catholic ethics (although it is probably closer to virtue theory). You'll probably remember this from an older discussion on informed conscience.
Since secular ethics theories have no source outside reason for their premises, these premises must necessarily be self-evident.
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat are these true propositions? How do you know they are true? Through sensations? Can you explain the process by which you go from "sensations" to the knowledge of good and evil or anything else? Can you see, hear, smell, taste morality?
no, my knowledge is not 'unaccounted for'. the things that i know are predicated upon things which i believe to be true propositions. these in turn are based on observations of how i perceive (with all my senses) the world. from what i can tell, this process tends to be pretty self-similar between men, whether friends or foes. even bad men know they are bad men, and they don't need the bible to tell them so....
I agree that men do not need to read the Bible to have some idea of right and wrong. But where does this knowledge come from? My world view (Christianity) says that God gives men this basic knowledge - and even while their consciences are convicted, men twist, ignore, suppress this knowledge. But people still do bad things, rationalize the evil they do. This explains why there are wars and crime.
But while I can explain and account for the innate knowledge that is common to all people - how do you account for it? How do bad men know they are bad men? Do you agree this comes from God?
Originally posted by ColettiHere you are pitching your religion onto other people---the very thing that is causing me to stray, and the very point of this thread. Right and wrong is shaped by the law for most people.
What are these true propositions? How do you know they are true? Through sensations? Can you explain the process by which you go from "sensations" to the knowledge of good and evil or anything else? Can you see, hear, smell, taste morality?
I agree that men do not need to read the Bible to have some idea of right and wrong. But where does this kno ...[text shortened]... you account for it? How do bad men know they are bad men? Do you agree this comes from God?
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhy on Earth do you think that? Nobody but strict Kantians claim that ethics derives from reason alone, and even they are talking about practical rationality, not theoretical rationality.
Since secular ethics theories have no source outside reason for their premises, these premises must necessarily be self-evident.
Originally posted by no1marauder
If your argument is that Natural Law is a "human convention" because humans are the ones who ascertain it, then your point is meaningless as who else would?
I'm not making such a point. However, if you use the "majority vote" to validate Natural Law, then you do reduce NL to a human convention unless you posit something like the Eternal Law - from which NL derives.
I do not accept your premise that because Natural Moral Law is a product of the way humans are (a physical reality) that there is any difference between it and the Law of Gravity which also describes physical reality. We can't see gravity but we can observe its effects; we can't see the Natural Moral Law but we can observe its effects. There is no difference.
There is a fundamental difference because Gravitation is a property of all matter - not just human matter. We rely on the law of gravitation because there is no known exception - all matter in the Universe is seen to attract each other. This is not the case with Natural Law - reasonable human beings do differ on their conclusions of the same Natural Law.
Coletti's point is no more valid as a criticism of Natural Law than it is as a criticism of Divine Law; the fact that men looking at the same things do not 100% agree on the precepts of either moral law does not invalidate the existence of moral law in toto.
I'm not saying it necessarily does. However, it does necessarily imply one of three things:
(1) No unique Natural Law exists.
(2) A unique Natural Law exists, but human reason is unreliable.
(3) A unique Natural Law exists, human reason is reliable; but Natural Law is not always or perfectly accessible by human beings.
(3) raises serious questions about the usefulness or reliability of secular NL theory.
The fact that men do agree on most general moral principles (i.e. it's not nice to kill or rob or rape) and that this shows cross-culturally and throughout time suggests that there is an underlying moral law. Then the question becomes only where it comes from. My question is: why believe it comes from something we don't know exists (God) rather than from something we know exists (human reason)?
If it comes from human reason, then (1) or (2) above will hold.
Originally posted by Colettigood post.
What are these true propositions? How do you know they are true? Through sensations? Can you explain the process by which you go from "sensations" to the knowledge of good and evil or anything else? Can you see, hear, smell, taste morality?
I agree that men do not need to read the Bible to have some idea of right and wrong. But where does this kno ...[text shortened]... you account for it? How do bad men know they are bad men? Do you agree this comes from God?
no, i do not agree that such knowledge must come from god. i do not think this knowledge is handed down at all, but rather discerned over time. the small child knows little of right and wrong. but through his perceptions of the world, his interactions with other people, and through the process of rational thought he comes to understand that some things are obviously right, some obviously wrong. the fundamental workings of this process are common to capable men. many things we recognize as obviously right or obviously wrong because we recognize that we would or would not want to be treated in a certain way by others. it is this common self-interest that binds men and results in similar individual constitutions. i honestly don't see what god has to do with any of it.
Originally posted by bbarrWouldn't an individual with no consciousness of the group's value system act rather psychopathic?
Why on Earth do you think that? Nobody but strict Kantians claim that ethics derives from reason alone, and even they are talking about practical rationality, not theoretical rationality.
Coletti's point is no more valid as a criticism of Natural Law than it is as a criticism of Divine Law; the fact that men looking at the same things do not 100% agree on the precepts of either moral law does not invalidate the existence of moral law in toto. The fact that men do agree on most general moral principles (i.e. it's not nice to kill or rob or rape) and that this shows cross-culturally and throughout time suggests that there is an underlying moral law. Then the question becomes only where it comes from. My question is: why believe it comes from something we don't know exists (God) rather than from something we know exists (human reason)?
Such reasoning would make you a good Buddhist, potentially.
This is basically what the Buddha argued, that we must work with what is known and recognizable, that being our own minds. He removed God from the equation because it is simply unnecessary, a redundancy.
In fact "God" is really nothing but a symbol for a higher principle. But this "higher principle" is directly accessible via our own mind, our own choices in life, our own resolve and intention to develop and deepen our understand of reality. In that sense, morality arises naturally from understanding.