If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law(tm), why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Charles Anthony:If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law(tm), why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering?
you must have a heck of a load of implicit premises because that seems like a big non sequitur.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Charles Anthony: If murder is against natural law and if natural law is The Law(tm), why do some sick murderers enjoy murdering? Just wondering.
Just wondering.
In fact, they find it beneficial in the ex ante sense.
anyway it seems to be a rhetorical question as you provide a possible reason, they are 'sick' ... but that's your suggestion not mine....
nirgrahamUK: anyway it seems to be a rhetorical question as you provide a possible reason, they are 'sick' ... but that's your suggestion not mine....
By the way, murder is human action.
so what?
Charles Anthony: By the way, murder is human action.
Everything is an action aimed at some goal. Read more Aristotle!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Good question. The answer is that "murder" isn't a law, and it's not not against any law, as such. The law states "murder is bad." The law is true, murder is indeed bad for humans. If the law were "murder is good," then humans would feel an imperative to murder (because natural laws are specific to the nature of each organism), and they would cease to exist.
I believe I answered this earlier:
hashem:For the umpteenth time: natural law for any organism states what is good and what is bad for the organism. Thus, the law is "murder is bad," not like the positive law "do not murder," or even something as ridiculous as "murder is impossible." The law holds, murder is indeed bad. For if the law were "murder is good," then it would follow that humans would feel an imperative to murder (since the laws are based on the nature of a given organism), and yet we don't and even if we did, we would not exist.
nirgrahamUK:so what?
The point being: violating your natural law against murder can very well be a means to an end ex.: the murderer enjoys it.
There simply is no objective reason why murder is morally wrong other than YOU say so.
I either dont understand you hashem or i actively disagree with you. let me find out which it was.
are you saying that there is no objective moral law about what people can and cannot do, but just natural law 'advice' about what is 'good' for people to do and avoid doing ? if so I disagree. if not then where does what you just wrote fit in?
Charles Anthony: The point being: violating your natural law against murder can very well be a means to an end ex.: the murderer enjoys it. There simply is no objective reason why murder is morally wrong other than YOU say so.
another non sequitor. its impossible for me to even try to agree with you because you arent showing joined up thinking but are massively leaping around everywhere.
nirgrahamUK:are you saying that there is no objective moral law about what people can and cannot do
The natural law is objective. The natural law of human ethics does not state what people can or can't do, it shows what will allow or prevent fulfillment of the nature of man.
when i say can and cannot in the above, i meant in the moral (not the physical) sense.
nirgrahamUK: when i say can and cannot in the above, i meant in the moral (not the physical) sense.
The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.
Charles Anthony:violating your natural law against murder can very well be a means to an end
Well thank god I criticize Mises for establishing normative subjective values in which you cannot criticize the ends. Hooray for Rothbard, without his refutation of this, we could all be utilitarian murders!
hashem:The natural law is objective. The natural law of human ethics does not state what people can or can't do, it shows what will allow or prevent fulfillment of the nature of man.
the way you can tell that a system of thought is one whose context is ethics/morality is that it tells you what you can and cannot do, what is morally legitimate and what is illegitimate. you just have a system of advice, "oh, i suggest you dont! no dont do that! why not? well, in case you go against your nature, .....which hardly matters since there is nothing morally illegitimate about going against your nature."
hashem:The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.
yes, but you've defined legitimacy out of 'bad' so its not a moral issue any more. you have gutted your ethics of ethics.
Charles Anthony: nirgrahamUK:so what? That is a rhetorical question too. You are starting to think. The point being: violating your natural law against murder can very well be a means to an end ex.: the murderer enjoys it. There simply is no objective reason why murder is morally wrong other than YOU say so.
And YOU just said that. so what?
Will is universally human. That is a principle - the act of will. Law is universal and to understand human nature, in other words, the natural tendency of a human, which in this context is act of will, then your assertion fails Charles. It is not universal. It is not a law. A murder murdering is countering an act of will of the victim. Thus the murderer is actively countering a universal human act and the only way to rid and absolutely counter a universal is to, in this case, kill it. But at death the victim is no longer within the scope of human nature - they are dead.
And how can a murderer do this? Because of free choice. Humans can counter and thus perverse their own individual nature upon themselves or others. That doesn't negate the universal act of will of a living human, which life is another universal principle of human nature, but that's another bedtime story.
wilderness: And YOU just said that. so what?
So, your natural law is not universal as evidenced by human action.
Charles Anthony: wilderness: And YOU just said that. so what? Indeed. My point is that not everybody agrees that murder is wrong and I point to murderers as an example of such people. So, your natural law is not universal as evidenced by human action.
Re-read my post. I did an edit.
hashem: a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.
a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.
You are flying loose with your language here. Murder doesn't "prevent humans from existing" unless you are using a very particular meaning of "human". At the very most, murder prevents a human from consciousness thus action. By what justification do you classify such a state as "unnatural" or "against human nature"? Is it not the natural tendency of a human to attain such a state when confronted with a knife to the heart or a brick to the head? The goodness or wrongness of such a state or action is not self-evident.
It seems the only way you can justify a claim such as yours is by introducing a supernatural element to the classification "human", as well as asserting an ultimate end for humans. Of course, even that does not make such a system self-evident, as the asserted "natural end" of humanity may be construed as "bad"; it is certainly not self-evidently "good".
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Charles Anthony:So, your natural law is not universal as evidenced by human action.
In a free-will world, nothing is pre-determined [other then the fact that there is free-will]. Therefore the establishment that people can act out of non-determinist courses and actions does not suddenly mean nothing is objective. If I were to suddenly get up now for no reason other then my will, would gravity suddenly go inverted because I acted out of free-will?
zefreak: Is it not the natural tendency of a human to attain such a state when confronted with a knife to the heart or a brick to the head? The goodness or wrongness of such a state or action is not self-evident.
Is it not the natural tendency of a human to attain such a state when confronted with a knife to the heart or a brick to the head? The goodness or wrongness of such a state or action is not self-evident.
This sounds very bizarre. A human naturally desires to be in a state with a brick to their head? lol...
zefreak: It seems the only way you can justify a claim such as yours is by introducing a supernatural element to the classification "human", as well as asserting an ultimate end for humans. Of course, even that does not make such a system self-evident, as the asserted "natural end" of humanity may be construed as "bad"; it is certainly not self-evidently "good".
Humans act of will. To counter this act of will of any one person is to counter a natural tendency of any human which this shunning is known as nolition. Going with ones own natural tendency acting of will is volition. Each person honoring this natural tendency in each other is freedom. Individually, even without the honoring of other people, each person acts in liberty.
Charles Anthony:My point is that not everybody agrees that murder is wrong and I point to murderers as an example of such people.
nirgrahamUK: hashem:The natural law is objective. The natural law of human ethics does not state what people can or can't do, it shows what will allow or prevent fulfillment of the nature of man. the way you can tell that a system of thought is one whose context is ethics/morality is that it tells you what you can and cannot do, what is morally legitimate and what is illegitimate. you just have a system of advice, "oh, i suggest you dont! no dont do that! why not? well, in case you go against your nature, .....which hardly matters since there is nothing morally illegitimate about going against your nature."
No, natural law does not say what you should do. It shows rather what is good or bad for humans considering their nature. The idea of morals is separate from the law. As I have said over and over: ethics are DERIVED FROM the natural law! They are not the natural law, and the natural law is not ethics.
zefreak:Murder doesn't "prevent humans from existing"
Yes, it does. If everyone decided that murder was good for humans, then they would all murder, and humans would cease to exist. Obviously not in a split second, but they would not exist after awhile.
My definition of human, certainly in the context of ethics for humans, is Rothbard's. Something that does not think and act is not human.
wilderness: zefreak: Is it not the natural tendency of a human to attain such a state when confronted with a knife to the heart or a brick to the head? The goodness or wrongness of such a state or action is not self-evident. This sounds very bizarre. A human naturally desires to be in a state with a brick to their head? lol...
My point has nothing to do with desire. A boulder falling and crushing a man is not self-evidently good or bad. Neither is a man driving a knife into another man's heart. The reason these are not self-evidently bad is because the moral value of both the action or the end result do not exist within themselves and cannot be derived from what is knowable of the circumstances.
wilderness: zefreak: It seems the only way you can justify a claim such as yours is by introducing a supernatural element to the classification "human", as well as asserting an ultimate end for humans. Of course, even that does not make such a system self-evident, as the asserted "natural end" of humanity may be construed as "bad"; it is certainly not self-evidently "good". Humans act of will. To counter this act of will of any one person is to counter a natural tendency of any human which this shunning is known as nolition. Going with ones own natural tendency acting of will is volition. Each person honoring this natural tendency in each other is freedom. Individually each person acts in liberty.
Humans act of will. To counter this act of will of any one person is to counter a natural tendency of any human which this shunning is known as nolition. Going with ones own natural tendency acting of will is volition. Each person honoring this natural tendency in each other is freedom. Individually each person acts in liberty.
I understand this, but it really has nothing to do with the point of the above quote.
But isn't dying (i.e. no longer existing) also the natural tendency of humans?
I am entering this thread very late and haven't read previous pages, so is this thread, like the others, about proving natural law ethics as being self evident, or about clarifying natural law ethics after accepting the self-ownership (in the sense of property right) axiom? In the case of the latter, I have nothing to add.
zefreak: My point has nothing to do with desire. A boulder falling and crushing a man is not self-evidently good or bad. Neither is a man driving a knife into another man's heart. The reason these are not self-evidently bad is because the moral value of both the action or the end result do not exist within themselves and cannot be derived from what is knowable of the circumstances.
A boulder falling is an act of nature that is not human. It is the nature of a boulder falling and it so happens a man was under such a boulder.
A human has choice in driving in the knife.
A boulder and a human are distinct in actions. Surely you jest.
zefreak: wilderness: It seems the only way you can justify a claim such as yours is by introducing a supernatural element to the classification "human", as well as asserting an ultimate end for humans. Of course, even that does not make such a system self-evident, as the asserted "natural end" of humanity may be construed as "bad"; it is certainly not self-evidently "good". Humans act of will. To counter this act of will of any one person is to counter a natural tendency of any human which this shunning is known as nolition. Going with ones own natural tendency acting of will is volition. Each person honoring this natural tendency in each other is freedom. Individually each person acts in liberty.
wilderness: It seems the only way you can justify a claim such as yours is by introducing a supernatural element to the classification "human", as well as asserting an ultimate end for humans. Of course, even that does not make such a system self-evident, as the asserted "natural end" of humanity may be construed as "bad"; it is certainly not self-evidently "good".
zefreak: I understand this, but it really has nothing to do with the point of the above quote.
yes it does... Will is an act and is a intellectual principle. Either way, will is an end in itself. To counter this will is to counter the natural tendency of a human which is nolition.
Angurse: hashem:The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is "murder is bad." It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans. But isn't dying (i.e. no longer existing) also the natural tendency of humans?
Nature killing a human is not murder...lol
zefreak:A boulder falling and crushing a man is not self-evidently good or bad.
Neither is a man driving a knife into another man's heart.
The reason these are not self-evidently bad is because the moral value of both the action or the end result do not exist within themselves and cannot be derived from what is knowable of the circumstances.
zefreak:I have nothing to add.
Juan:"The reason these are not self-evidently bad is because the moral value of both the action or the end result do not exist within themselves " - meaningless.
yeah that's why I glossed over that part... it really made no sense, but then again zefreak seems to be saying a rock is a human...lol
Juan: "cannot be derived from what is knowable of the circumstances." false unfounded assertion.
"cannot be derived from what is knowable of the circumstances." false unfounded assertion.
And meanwhile zefreak came up with the example in a seemingly knowable way. He even knew the circumstances, fictional, but abstractly apprehended none-the-less.
wilderness: Nature killing a human is not murder...lol
But it does prevent them from existing, which is (supposedly) the natural tendency. If the law "murder is bad" is correct simply because it "prevents humans from existing" (as was stated) then anything that prevents humans from existing should be also be bad. No?
Angurse: wilderness: Nature killing a human is not murder...lol But it does prevent them from existing, which is (supposedly) the natural tendency. If the law "murder is bad" is correct simply because it "prevents humans from existing" (as was stated) then anything that prevents humans from existing should be also be bad. No?
No, because we are talking about human nature. Not rocks and trees and fish, etc...
wilderness: No, because we are talking about human nature. Not rocks and trees and fish, etc...
When did I speak of rocks and trees and fish, etc...?
Do humans not die naturally without outside influence?
Juan: Stephen Forde:The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods. Well, all political theories do that. None of them really denies scarcity.
Stephen Forde:The task of political philosophy is to assign rules regarding the use of scarce goods.
That's just the general scope of political philosophy.
Juan:The only truly objective criteria however, are those that must necessarily presuppose argumentation and its superset, action. Now what this implies in the field of ethics is that all distinctions between justified and unjustified claims over scarce goods must be based on praxeological criteria. I'm not not sure what that means. I don't see why ethics should follow 'praxeological criteria' - it's not even clear what 'praxeological criteria' are.
The only truly objective criteria however, are those that must necessarily presuppose argumentation and its superset, action. Now what this implies in the field of ethics is that all distinctions between justified and unjustified claims over scarce goods must be based on praxeological criteria.
Well, one can make distinctions based on praxeological criteria such as homesteader and non-homesteader or aggressor and non-aggressor. One can also make arbitrary distinctions such as discriminated against and discriminated in favour of or have and have-not. One is objective and the other is not.
Juan:Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation. False.
Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation.
One cannot beat their opponent into accepting the truth of a claim. Propositional exchange is a non-coercive affair.
Juan:Both participants must allow full unhampered control over the other’s body during the course of the exchange. False. You can be tied up and still be able to argue. At the very least, both participants must have control over their own vocal chords, ears and brains and since there is no praxeological distinction between different parts of the body, it is impossible for anyone engaged in argumentation to deny the right of one’s opponent the uncoerced use of their entire body. I don't think that follows ...
Both participants must allow full unhampered control over the other’s body during the course of the exchange.
At the very least, both participants must have control over their own vocal chords, ears and brains and since there is no praxeological distinction between different parts of the body, it is impossible for anyone engaged in argumentation to deny the right of one’s opponent the uncoerced use of their entire body.
Let's say someone were completely paralyzed. Would they be able to argue? Obviously not. And if their opponent deprived them of the means of communicating, then they wouldn't be able to argue. Communication requires some control over one's body. And there's no difference in principle between different parts of the body.
Juan:In addition, for one to engage in argumentation, they must also occupy some standing room, or land. Yes, but, again, that doesn't presuppose any 'legal' norm.
In addition, for one to engage in argumentation, they must also occupy some standing room, or land.
It means that argumentation presupposes that the proponent allow full control over a homesteaded good.
Juan:In a word, from "being physically able to argue" it doesn't follow that "natural rights are justified".
Just as economic truths don't follow from the fact that humans are able to act.
Juan:Anyway, my question was more along the lines of "why are natural rights morally good" ? Consider that the difference between fiat law/legal positivism and natural law is that natural law rules are morally good, whereas positive law is just whatever gets enforced at the point of a gun.
Doesn't that have to be settled in the course of an argument?
Angurse: wilderness: No, because we are talking about human nature. Not rocks and trees and fish, etc... When did I speak of rocks and trees and fish, etc...?
You didn't. I did. I was pointing out the category, human nature, that is being inquired.
Angurse: Do humans not die naturally without outside influence?
Yes, humans naturally die without outside influence. The natural tendency of humans is to act. When a human dies, they are no longer the human they once were, but as noted I am talking about human nature. A dead person is no longer being human in the natural sense of the term. The act of will is categorically about human nature, not about a human no longer human. That would be similar to trying to fit the category of human into fish. There is a distinct absolute difference.
Juan: Charles Anthony:My point is that not everybody agrees that murder is wrong and I point to murderers as an example of such people. Wrong. Smith failing to understand that 2+2=4 doesn't mean that 2+2=4 is false. IOW words you are resorting to a fallacy called "argument from ignorance".
But then, how do we establish that 2+2=4, or that murder is wrong, the fact that not all men deem it wrong illustrates that the attempt to deem murder as an immoral act via the fact "everyone" believes it to be so as fallacious.
hashem: nirgrahamUK: hashem:The natural law is objective. The natural law of human ethics does not state what people can or can't do, it shows what will allow or prevent fulfillment of the nature of man. the way you can tell that a system of thought is one whose context is ethics/morality is that it tells you what you can and cannot do, what is morally legitimate and what is illegitimate. you just have a system of advice, "oh, i suggest you dont! no dont do that! why not? well, in case you go against your nature, .....which hardly matters since there is nothing morally illegitimate about going against your nature." No, natural law does not say what you should do. It shows rather what is good or bad for humans considering their nature. The idea of morals is separate from the law. As I have said over and over: ethics are DERIVED FROM the natural law! They are not the natural law, and the natural law is not ethics.
Whence is "natural law" derived?
hashem: zefreak:Murder doesn't "prevent humans from existing" Yes, it does. If everyone decided that murder was good for humans, then they would all murder, and humans would cease to exist. Obviously not in a split second, but they would not exist after awhile.
Do I sense a utilitarian case against murder? Or am I wrong...
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke