wilderness: 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...
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?
wilderness: Nature killing a human is not murder...lol
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...
Your objection doesn't make any sense at all.
Stephen Forde: wilderness: 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... Your objection doesn't make any sense at all.
And so you share with me how you don't understand. Can you be more specific?
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".
Charles Anthony:My point is that not everybody agrees that murder is wrong and I point to murderers as an example of such people.
I think he's just pointing out the circular reasoning with a reductio. If natural is that which is good, and that which is unnatural immoral, and murder is immoral, then how can murderers find murder good?
wilderness: Stephen Forde: wilderness: 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... Your objection doesn't make any sense at all. And so you share with me how you don't understand. Can you be more specific?
Rocks, fish, and trees don't have anything to do with the fact that human beings eventually die. Also Angurse also explained that death is natural 'human' tendency, so the "No, because we are talking about human nature" is a non sequitur.
laminustacitus:Whence is "natural law" derived?
Your question is literally the same as "whence is the law of gravity derived?" Through reason and reflection. Empirically. It's true whether we grasp the concept or even name it.
laminustacitus:Do I sense a utilitarian case against murder? Or am I wrong...
The more cases which support the natural law, the better.
Stephen Forde: Rocks, fish, and trees don't have anything to do with the fact that human beings eventually die.
Rocks, fish, and trees don't have anything to do with the fact that human beings eventually die.
We agree, unless the referent is zefreak's falling boulder upon the passing man.
Stephen Forde: Also Angurse also explained that death is natural 'human' tendency, so the "No, because we are talking about human nature" is a non sequitur.
Also Angurse also explained that death is natural 'human' tendency, so the "No, because we are talking about human nature" is a non sequitur.
Explain to me how a dead human is still of the nature of a human. Keep in mind another principle of human nature is life.
wilderness:Explain to me how a dead human is still of the nature of a human. Keep in mind another principle of human nature is life.
Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? For example euthanasia, aging, risky jobs and so on.
And the problem becomes ever worse when you consider scarcity and tradeoffs. Lets say there's two ppl who need a heart transplant and only one heart. Now if you give it to one that's wrong from the point of view of the other.
So, your objection still makes no sense.
Stephen Forde:Well, one can make distinctions based on praxeological criteria such as homesteader and non-homesteader or aggressor and non-aggressor.
S: J: S: Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation. False. One cannot beat their opponent into accepting the truth of a claim. Propositional exchange is a non-coercive affair.
J: S: Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation. False.
S: Furthermore, certain legal norms must be logically presupposed during the course of interpersonal argumentation.
Communication requires some control over one's body.
And there's no difference in principle between different parts of the body.
It means that argumentation presupposes that the proponent allow full control over a homesteaded good.
Just as economic truths don't follow from the fact that humans are able to act.
S: J: 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?
J: 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.
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."
wilderness:Yes, humans naturally die without outside influence. The natural tendency of humans is to act.
Now, wait... I thought the natural tendency of humans was to exist?
wilderness: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.
When a human hits puberty they are no longer the human they once were - I don't see the point. What is the natural sense of the term?
wilderness:The act of will is categorically about human nature, not about a human no longer human.
What is the "act of will," I'm not familiar with that phrase?
wilderness:That would be similar to trying to fit the category of human into fish. There is a distinct absolute difference.
No, because humans actually do tend to die.
Stephen Forde:I think he's just pointing out the circular reasoning with a reductio.
Stephen Forde: wilderness:Explain to me how a dead human is still of the nature of a human. Keep in mind another principle of human nature is life. Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? For example euthanasia, aging, risky jobs and so on.
That's why a disease is called a disease, a sickness a sickness. As I had as a signature until some days ago by Rothbard and previous natural philosophers back to Aristotle here is the expanded quote:
"The concept of "good" (and therefore of "bad") is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be "good" for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be "good" for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, "the good" is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The "bad" is whatever injures such an entity's life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an "elm tree ethics" by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed "bad" for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures.
Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act."
my computer's dictionary:
disease |diˈzēz| noun a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp.one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury
This is why there is medicine and doctor's treat patients, etc... Bad is what is injurious to a species life and/or prosperity. It is called nolition.
Stephen Forde: And the problem becomes ever worse when you consider scarcity and tradeoffs. Lets say there's two ppl who need a heart transplant and only one heart. Now if you give it to one that's wrong from the point of view of the other. So, your objection still makes no sense.
And the problem becomes ever worse when you consider scarcity and tradeoffs. Lets say there's two ppl who need a heart transplant and only one heart. Now if you give it to one that's wrong from the point of view of the other. So, your objection still makes no sense.
You fail to understand, thus, intellectual apprehend and that's why you say, "still makes no sense." For it's you talking and making that statement. I am not the sole authority on this topic so you could find many people who have discussed what I am talking about, for instance, natural philosophers and scientists.
Medical ethics has been a long discussed topic.
any more inquires?
hashem: laminustacitus:Whence is "natural law" derived? Your question is literally the same as "whence is the law of gravity derived?" Through reason and reflection. Empirically. It's true whether we grasp the concept or even name it.
While for discovering theories that predict how gravity will operate, we have the phenomena of the empirical universe, what is natural law's parallel for discovering it? While gravity will dictate the trajectory of a falling rock, whence we can discover theories to describe, and predict the rock's path, man can violate the "natural law", he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the "natural law" - hence, where is the empirical existence of the natural law?
hashem: laminustacitus:Do I sense a utilitarian case against murder? Or am I wrong... The more cases which support the natural law, the better.
The utilitarian perspective does not "support the natural law", it is its own, independent form of ethics.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: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.
Juan: laminustacitus: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. Did I say murder is wrong because "everyone" believes that ? What I'm saying is that people who do evil (i.e. murderers) don't prove through their actions that the good doesn't exist. Murder is always morally wrong...and...some people commit murder anyway. But that doesn't make murder right - at best it shows that the murderer thought that killing was in his best interest.
Keep in mind that the post to which you responded, which I then proceeded to respond to, (if I am not mistaken) was against the proposition that murdering being amoral is a result of man's universal predeposition against murder.
Angurse: wilderness:Yes, humans naturally die without outside influence. The natural tendency of humans is to act. Now, wait... I thought the natural tendency of humans was to exist?
Yes, but as I said at death a human is no longer of their nature, their human nature. That would be a whole other discussion, maybe on life after death in the clouds stringing harps, going to Hades, or the Bardo states of Tibetan buddhists, idk.
Angurse: wilderness: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. When a human hits puberty they are no longer the human they once were - I don't see the point. What is the natural sense of the term?
A principle of human nature, as I linked in another post, is life.
Angurse: wilderness:The act of will is categorically about human nature, not about a human no longer human. What is the "act of will," I'm not familiar with that phrase?
my computer dictionary:
will |wɪl| |wɪl|noun1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action
There are two aspects of will. There is appetitive will in which all life (the scientific classification of such) in which is absolutely active. And then there is the intellectual will that can decide upon appetitive will, thus, will in general. Appetitive will and intellectual will are both the same will. It is the faculty of the human that is distinct, not will itself. Act of will is teleological. Will power is not an end, but the operation, the means to the end. Will power is a subset of the act of will. Detailed, technical stuff.
Angurse: wilderness:That would be similar to trying to fit the category of human into fish. There is a distinct absolute difference. No, because humans actually do tend to die.
Sure a human does die, but that point of death is not the complete human that once was in accord with the principle of life, etc... When Tom dies there is a change and unfortunately that still, dead body, is not completely Tom anymore. If you want to speculate on what happened to Tom when he died, then that's your call.
Juan: ...at best it shows that the murderer thought that killing was in his best interest.
...at best it shows that the murderer thought that killing was in his best interest.
aka utilitarianism
wilderness:Yes, but as I said at death a human is no longer of their nature, their human nature.
So, after puberty a teenager is no longer of their (childish) nature? Its completely natural for human nature to change (as we've agreed).
wilderness:A principles of human nature, as I linked in another post, is life.
Again so? Naturally humans change to a non-existent state. Would reviving a dead person be against its nature? A "reverse-murder" if you will.
wilderness: my computer dictionary: will |wɪl| |wɪl|noun1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action There are two aspects of will. There is appetitive will in which all life (the scientific classification of such) in which is absolutely active. And then there is the intellectual will that can decide upon appetitive will, thus, will in general. Appetitive will and intellectual will are both the same will. It is the faculty of the human that is distinct, not will itself. Act of will is teleological. Will power is not an end, but the operation, the means to the end. Will power is a subset of the act of will. Detailed, technical stuff.
Basically, the act of deciding and initiating an action?
wilderness: Sure a human does die, but that point of death is not the complete human that once was in accord with the principle of life, etc...
Sure a human does die, but that point of death is not the complete human that once was in accord with the principle of life, etc...
I don't think there is any point to death, its just an aspect of life.
wilderness:When Tom dies there is a change and unfortunately that still, dead body, is not completely Tom anymore. If you want to speculate on what happened to Tom when he died, then that's your call.
Again so? When Tommy hits puberty there is a change and unfortunately that sweaty, enlarged body, is not completely Tommy anymore.
Look, if you want to say a human who has dies ceases to be a human, fine. That still doesn't answer the question of murder violating natural law because it goes against humans "tendency to exist." The argument is simply flawed as its perfectly within human nature to stop existing (or stop being a human, as you've said). At least, as far as I can tell.
Angurse: wilderness:A principles of human nature, as I linked in another post, is life. Again so? Naturally humans change to a non-existent state. Would reviving a dead person be against its nature? A "reverse-murder" if you will.
Is that non-existent human - human? I'd say logically that's a contradiction and against the law of non-contradiction.
Can a dead person be revived? If so, then medicine is truly amazing. What is death if not a life - thus - do you really want to speculate outside of science? That's your choice. People do it all the time in religion and spirituality, etc...
Angurse: wilderness: my computer dictionary: will |wɪl| |wɪl|noun1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action There are two aspects of will. There is appetitive will in which all life (the scientific classification of such) in which is absolutely active. And then there is the intellectual will that can decide upon appetitive will, thus, will in general. Appetitive will and intellectual will are both the same will. It is the faculty of the human that is distinct, not will itself. Act of will is teleological. Will power is not an end, but the operation, the means to the end. Will power is a subset of the act of will. Detailed, technical stuff. Basically, the act of deciding and initiating an action?
Technically, the act of deciding takes will, but that particular act called deciding is reason. Not only initiating a particular action based on a decision, choice, but also action itself of the human.
Angurse: wilderness: Sure a human does die, but that point of death is not the complete human that once was in accord with the principle of life, etc... I don't think there is any point to death, its just an aspect of life.
Not a point, as in meaning, if that's what you meant. I'm saying at the medically decided point of death. When science categories what was a life, as now being something else, and thus Tom is dead - no longer the Tom that was alive.
Angurse: wilderness:When Tom dies there is a change and unfortunately that still, dead body, is not completely Tom anymore. If you want to speculate on what happened to Tom when he died, then that's your call. Again so? When Tommy hits puberty there is a change and unfortunately that sweaty, enlarged body, is not completely Tommy anymore.
This is a failure of you to understand between life and inanimate body that once was called Tom and people still may project upon this inanimate body called Tom, but that's not the Tom that was alive.
Angurse: Look, if you want to say a human who has dies ceases to be a human, fine. That still doesn't answer the question of murder violating natural law because it goes against humans "tendency to exist."
Look, if you want to say a human who has dies ceases to be a human, fine. That still doesn't answer the question of murder violating natural law because it goes against humans "tendency to exist."
Humans tend to exist when they are human. Even a human that was murdered is no longer the human they once were - they are dead. Medicine fights natural death. Eating healthy fights natural death and disease, etc... Exercise and so on. As humans we undoubtedly in some form or fashion have gone to extreme measures compared to other creatures on this earth to preserve ourselves. But murder is not natural death. To murder a person is not solely based on the principle of will and life. Universally liberty, freedom from physical coercion, can be intellectually apprehended by humans. That's the fact. Criminals either knowingly counter the act of another human and physically coerce the other human when the criminal being human and knowing they are violating the right of life (person) does so by choice when the criminal could have chosen other wise. Rocks falling on people and natural death are acts committed by non-chosen means. It is this fact that human's chose that makes their violation a crime. Now what about an insane person who is out-of-their mind and kills somebody? That would be a more interesting discussion which in the courts today sometimes this criminal is deemed insane and a different approach to repercussions is considered at times. This argument usually comes back to human can choose the violate another human - free-will is significant in understanding this.
Angurse: The argument is simply flawed as its perfectly within human nature to stop existing (or stop being a human, as you've said). At least, as far as I can tell.
The argument is simply flawed as its perfectly within human nature to stop existing (or stop being a human, as you've said). At least, as far as I can tell.
Not when choice is understood. Humans have free-will aka free choice - another principle of human nature. It undoubtedly may be challenging to know, for sure, if a person committed a crime by choice or due to a psychological disease, which is a whole other topic in itself.
edit: Also, I understand some people like to blame God for killing their son in an auto accident (blaming God cause it was an accident and not the other driver, etc...) People like to blame God or the devil for taking grandma away. But I'm not speculating upon a voluntary act by some other entity when considering natural death (an act of nature and thus an involuntary action, disease, old age, etc...). Now if a person does an investigation and can prove such and such a product or their water supply killed grandpa, then a justifiable case and criminal charges against another person violating the right of life (person) could be heard in court.
wilderness: Is that non-existent human - human? I'd say logically that's a contradiction and against the law of non-contradiction.
Use whatever term you wish, its still beside the point.
wilderness:Can a dead person be revived? If so, then medicine is truly amazing.
Yes. (Depending on how one defines death at least)
wilderness:Technically, the act of deciding takes will, but that particular act called deciding is reason. Not only initiating a particular action based on a decision, choice, but also action itself of the human.
The act of dying itself is of what then?
wilderness:What is death if not a life - thus - do you really want to speculate outside of science? That's your choice. People do it all the time in religion and spirituality, etc...
And what is life if not death? This is silly.
wilderness:Not a point, as in meaning, if that's what you meant. I'm saying at the medically decided point of death. When science categories what was a life, as now being something else, and thus Tom is dead - no longer the Tom that was alive.
I don't know, you used the phrase "point of death" you should explain it yourself further.
wilderness:This is a failure of you to understand between life and inanimate body that once was called Tom and people still may project upon this inanimate body called Tom, but that's not the Tom that was alive.
I grasp the difference, do you understand that the Tom after puberty is not the Tom before?
wilderness:Humans tend to exist when they are human. Even a human that was murdered is no longer the human they once were - they are dead.
Understood, its a terminology issue. Please stop repeating yourself so much.
wilderness:Medicine fights natural death. Eating healthy fights natural death and disease, etc... Exercise and so on. As humans we undoubtedly in some form or fashion have gone to extreme measures compared to other creatures on this earth to preserve ourselves. But murder is not natural death.
One could easily contend that using medicine to fight death is unnatural, and that you are living an unnatural life.
wilderness:To murder a person is not solely based on the principle of will and life. Universally liberty, freedom from physical coercion, can be intellectually apprehended by humans. That's the fact. Criminals either knowingly counter the act of another human and physically coerce the other human when the criminal being human and knowing they are violating the right of life (person) does so by choice when the criminal could have chosen other wise. Rocks falling on people and natural death are acts committed by non-chosen means.
This is going completely outside of the statement I first questioned, you seem to be mixing in various moral arguments to justify it. Do you agree it is flawed (as far as it was presented)?
wilderness:Not when choice is understood. Humans have free-will aka free choice - another principle of human nature.
Can you choose not to obey the laws of gravity or any other natural law? Perhaps calling it a natural law is the flaw.
Angurse: wilderness: Is that non-existent human - human? I'd say logically that's a contradiction and against the law of non-contradiction. Use whatever term you wish, its still beside the point.
No it's not if you are arguing that a dead, non-existent human is somehow existent and alive. That's a contradiction.
Angurse: wilderness:Can a dead person be revived? If so, then medicine is truly amazing. Yes. (Depending on how one defines death at least)
true
Angurse: wilderness:What is death if not a life - thus - do you really want to speculate outside of science? That's your choice. People do it all the time in religion and spirituality, etc... And what is life if not death, this is silly.
And what is life if not death, this is silly.
that's what I thought when you brought it up, but maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are talking about human nature and not some kind of creature that is no longer a human.
Angurse: wilderness:Not a point, as in meaning, if that's what you meant. I'm saying at the medically decided point of death. When science categories what was a life, as now being something else, and thus Tom is dead - no longer the Tom that was alive. I don't know, you used the phrase "point of death" you should explain it further.
I don't know, you used the phrase "point of death" you should explain it further.
life has ceased aka "point of death". Do you see what I mean now?
To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That's the premised argument.
Angurse: wilderness:This is a failure of you to understand between life and inanimate body that once was called Tom and people still may project upon this inanimate body called Tom, but that's not the Tom that was alive. I grasp the difference, do you understand that the Tom after puberty is not the Tom before?
Why are we talking about Tom's puberty?
Angurse: wilderness:Humans tend to exist when they are human. Even a human that was murdered is no longer the human they once were - they are dead. Understood, its a terminology issue. Please stop repeating yourself so much.
Well if you understand, then I guess I won't need to repeat myself anymore... thank goodness.
Angurse: wilderness:Medicine fights natural death. Eating healthy fights natural death and disease, etc... Exercise and so on. As humans we undoubtedly in some form or fashion have gone to extreme measures compared to other creatures on this earth to preserve ourselves. But murder is not natural death. One could easily contend that using medicine to fight death is unnatural, and that you are living an unnatural life.
sigh... Please don't. That's simply a ridiculous assertion and my time is more valuable than that to spend it listening to you go on about how medicine is unnatural, etc... You are at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to not entertain this.
Angurse: wilderness:To murder a person is not solely based on the principle of will and life. Universally liberty, freedom from physical coercion, can be intellectually apprehended by humans. That's the fact. Criminals either knowingly counter the act of another human and physically coerce the other human when the criminal being human and knowing they are violating the right of life (person) does so by choice when the criminal could have chosen other wise. Rocks falling on people and natural death are acts committed by non-chosen means. This is going completely outside of the statement I first questioned, you seem to be mixing in various moral arguments to justify it. Do you agree it is flawed (as far as it was presented)?
No. I am completely inside of the discussion. Principle of free choose is of human nature. learn human nature and you'll understand, well, human nature...
Angurse: wilderness:Not when choice is understood. Humans have free-will aka free choice - another principle of human nature. Can you choose not to obey the laws of gravity or any other natural law? Perhaps calling it a natural law is the flaw.
No, perhaps you do not understanding that I'm talking about human nature and it is a natural law: all humans choose. It is universal that humans choose. Liberty and freedom are different than power. *sigh* To have to talk about the simple things about who we are as humans to another human is... sigh. I suggest you think for yourself, do some introspection on your own life as a human, and intellectually apprehend your own nature. When it comes to justice it is stepping in to counter a person that is violating rights. What would be up on trial is the person and the extension of their will (they used a gun, etc...), but what is undoubtedly clearly on trial is their judgment. If you can scientifically point out where the judgment of natural death sits or the judgement of a boulder, then let me know. But you can't. This is why I have to repeat myself, because yet again you bring up the "laws of gravity" which is not of human. We are talking about human nature. Examine your own understanding when making such comments. Good night.
Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad?
To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
laminustacitus:what is natural law's parallel for discovering it?
Gravity is a law of nature. Gravity is a part of the natural law. ANY law is necessarily a part of the natural law, because only laws of nature are absolutely true, i.e. gravity. Your question is confused.
laminustacitus:he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the "natural law"
For the ten-millionth time: the natural law is "murder is bad." It is not "do not murder" or "murder is impossible."
The natural law cannot be transcended. It is absolutely and necessarily true.
For example, murder will always be bad for humankind.
Gravity will always pull objects together.
Man can kill, that does not violate the law that "murder is bad for humankind."
Man can jump, that does not violate the law that gravity will pull him back to the ground.
hashem: Stephen Forde:Human beings are mortal. Angurse's point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn't everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn't exist. Get it yet?
I add. Natural death is involuntary. For what is on trial pertaining to a criminal is ultimately or near such, their judgement (voluntary action, free choice). This is an addition to why rights pertain to humans and NOT boulders and animals.
Also, when a person dies, they are no longer human and the discussion isn't about human nature. Religion usually speculates on matters when a humans life ceases. I'm sure we are discussing science, not religion. Not to say a person can't speculate using their religion, but that's a whole other field outside of the science of human nature.
hashem: laminustacitus:he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the "natural law"For the ten-millionth time: the natural law is "murder is bad." It is not "do not murder" or "murder is impossible."
Heck, try to define "bad" if you can.
Juan: Murder is always morally wrong...and...some people commit murder anyway. But that doesn't make murder right - at best it shows that the murderer thought that killing was in his best interest.
How about we just cut through all of the crap. You atheists have no objective basis for your morality and you will forever struggle with your own cognitive dissonance.
Charles Anthony: hashem: laminustacitus:he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the "natural law"For the ten-millionth time: the natural law is "murder is bad." It is not "do not murder" or "murder is impossible." Back at you. For the millionth time: Prove that murder is bad.
1) Bad according to human nature has already been quoted in this thread. Go back and read it. It is a definition that has been around for as far as records show to Aristotle. Look up the word: nolition. So to understand a concept according to any field of study, such as natural philosophers, go straight to the horses mouth.
2) What do you mean by prove?
Charles Anthony: How about we just cut through all of the crap. You atheists have no objective basis for your morality and you will forever struggle with your own cognitive dissonance.
How about your skepticism is local and we are, I for one not to speak for others, are not going to let your skepticism ruin clarity and allow you to turn the world into a hodge-podge of confusion based on Charles inability to intellectually apprehend his own nature.
"You atheists..." lol... you're lacking of understanding comes through loud and clear. I'm not an atheist. Is ignorance as grand as some people say?
Charles Anthony:How about we just cut through all of the crap. You atheists have no objective basis for your morality and you will forever struggle with your own cognitive dissonance.
No doubt I'm not the first person to spot the irony of a religious person calling out an atheist for lack of objective basis. How completely hilarious!
How do you know we are not atheist precisely because of objective reflection? I for one was raised christian for 19 years, converted to judaism for 1 year, before ditching the whole thing because it is utterly contradictory and ludicrous.
hashem: laminustacitus:what is natural law's parallel for discovering it? Gravity is a law of nature. Gravity is a part of the natural law. ANY law is necessarily a part of the natural law, because only laws of nature are absolutely true, i.e. gravity.
Gravity is a law of nature. Gravity is a part of the natural law. ANY law is necessarily a part of the natural law, because only laws of nature are absolutely true, i.e. gravity.
Gravity, and anything from the physical sciences is not absolutely true. It may very well be that we are completely deceived in referring to "gravity" as a single force; in fact, gravity may all of a sudden stop working. It is pure hubris to raise our knowledge to such a degree by calling our understanding of the laws of nature, such as gravity, a "natural law" for our knowledge will never be a "law", it will only be a falliable theory.
By the way, I'm still more than keen on hearing a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality.
hashem: laminustacitus:he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the "natural law" For the ten-millionth time: the natural law is "murder is bad." It is not "do not murder" or "murder is impossible."
And yet you cannot give a natural law deduction of why murder is objectively bad. The entire thesis about murdering is bad because it is anathema to human flourishing relies on one valuing human flourishing, and every man does not value human-flourishing.
Charles Anthony: Back at you. For the millionth time: Prove that murder is bad.
QED.
FWIW, Chuck: you've never been able to overcome the Euthyphro Dilemma.
laminustacitus:Gravity, and anything from the physical sciences is not absolutely true. It may very well be that we are completely deceived in referring to "gravity" as a single force; in fact, gravity may all of a sudden stop working.
It is pure hubris to raise our knowledge to such a degree by calling our understanding of the laws of nature,
Knight_of_BAAWA: Charles Anthony: Back at you. For the millionth time: Prove that murder is bad.Murder is a violation of rights. Ergo, it is bad. QED.
Juan: laminustacitus:Gravity, and anything from the physical sciences is not absolutely true. It may very well be that we are completely deceived in referring to "gravity" as a single force; in fact, gravity may all of a sudden stop working. How ?
By undiscovered phenomena.
Juan:It is pure hubris to raise our knowledge to such a degree by calling our understanding of the laws of nature, What seems to be a lot of hubris is your
No, man should always be skeptical with respect to the quality of his knowledge.
Juan:By the way, I'm still more than keen on hearing a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality. Well, I suggest you prove 'natural' slavery. If you can't then It seems to me that natural liberty is the objective ethics.
I'm not trying to prove "natural slavery"; in fact, I'm not trying to prove anything.
Charles Anthony:] You give libertarianism a bad name by using a circular reasoning to justify your morality.
And you still haven't been able to overcome the Euthyphro Dilemma.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And you still haven't been able to overcome the Euthyphro Dilemma.
In Christianity, the Euthyphro Dilemma simply doesn't matter; it is a false dilemma because goodness is grounded in God, and expressed by God - ubi caritas, ibi Deus.
Mmmhmm. Try again.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Mmmhmm. Try again.
Ubi caritas, ibi Deus: bye, bye Euthyphro Dilemma. If you disagree, actually state a reason next time, thank-you very much.
laminustacitus:In Christianity, the Euthyphro Dilemma simply doesn't matter; it is a false dilemma because goodness is grounded in God, and expressed by God - ubi caritas, ibi Deus.
If goodness is God and expressed by God then explain the rise of Lucifer
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael