So what would you all say to the following statements? Just out of curiosity.
"Natural Law is always used to refute any establishment as in some way or another it violated some person somewhere adn ceases to exist when said person what some protection, some service or similar.
Yet natural law itself is merely a hypothisis generated to refute any and all contracts. aka, scematic arguements on parade. Make a mistake, one that hurt you terribly or changed your life forever. Now watch your child attempt to make that mistake and tell me then how much you believe in Natural Law.
The law of doing what is right by the individual negates the benefit of society. Without the benefit of society mankind would not have survived. So while natural law is a find philosophy, it cannot exist in a society in a raw form because at some point written and common sense law must take place. Therefore there have to be assumptions and general understandings to the intent and meaning of words combined into contracts Simply because language is so diverse adn understanding thereof is even more diverse we can never come up with a single meaning or intent for any "contract" or "agreements"
So considering that need for general acceptance of intent, Natural Law is not applicable and any other philosophy used in conjunction with it as its base will fall short of its true merit and simply create a chaos used to endorse an idea that is beneficial to an individual and not society."
Simplified version:
"An individual can do whatever they want if no one else is around or impacted by their actions (animals, planet etc do not count, only other humans). Once another person is introduced, natural law begins to fail as consideration has to be taken for both sides. Each of them will view it slightly different and certain express it slightly different. For every human you add to that, that variance spreads and once that happens, there has to be mutual acceptance as to the intent. If you do that, Natural law is void. If you don't do that, you have chaos and constant fighting/disruption and the inability to move forward and learn from one another."
Also, anyone have any suggested readings on Natural Law?
The law of doing what is right by the individual negates the benefit of society.
that doesnt seem altogether true. doing what is righ tby the individual could also benefit other individuals
The only book I've read that addresses natural law is The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard. It is a great introduction to the argument in favor of natural law and natural rights. Basically, Rothbard defines the concepts of property and voluntary exchange, starting with a man alone on an island and building up to a normal society. He argues that natural law is applied in the same way to all sides and all people. If anyone violates the non-aggression principle, and agresses against someone elses person or property, they have violated natural law and are criminals. Human society flourishes when people respect property rights and exchange peacefully. Human society is disrupted when people aggress against each other. This is the nature of humans.
Another way Rothbard describes natural law: through reason and intellect, it is possible for man to figure out his own nature, just like we can figure out the properties of water or copper.
I have read many arguments on this forum against natural law, but not necessarily with the argument in your post. It's usually philosophical, like "you can't derive an ought from an is" and "morality is subjective." I need to do more reading - not sure what I believe yet.
Your post has hit on an important point. Even if natural law exists, people don't agree that it does and don't follow it. I think Rothbard argues that it is just there no matter what, like gravity.
Well, I just saw your library on another thread, and it looks like you're way ahead of me in terms of natural law reading. Oh well, at least I tried....
Unseen forces are accelerating the universal expansion, which defies the laws of gravity according to physicists. In the same way, natural law might have some "unseen" or intrinsic components in the very pathology of the human design, upon which mankind in its majority is unable to coalesce apart from NAP; something that guides behavior from the primal core to the very heights of logical and intellectual awareness. In the end, perhaps natural law does turn out to be a human construct. Only a nihilist would deny the natural law based upon whether natural law was manufactured or spontaneously generated in pathology. In any event, we all believe in the intentions of natural law, so why debate this idea's "actual" existence beyond just that?
Only a nihilist would deny the natural law based upon whether natural law was manufactured or spontaneously generated in pathology. In any event, we all believe in the intentions of natural law, so why debate this idea's "actual" existence beyond just that?
I think I agree. The idea of natural law makes sense given the context of human society, just like gravity makes sense given the context of Newtonian physics. Just because the outer reaches of the universe don't follow the laws of gravity doesn't mean it's not a useful law. Just because natural law may be a human construct doesn't mean it's not useful.
I'm not sure I agree that "we all believe in the intentions of natural law." Certainly many libertarians and other intellectuals agree with the intentions, but most people do not seem capable of even understanding the intentions. Do non-libertarians "believe" even though they don't realize it?
LeeO:Well, I just saw your library on another thread, and it looks like you're way ahead of me in terms of natural law reading. Oh well, at least I tried....
Not exactly. I've actually only read Economics in One Lesson, Introduction to Economic Reasoning, The Revolution: A Manifesto, and I'm about a quarter through For a New Liberty.
Oh, in that case, read The Ethics of Liberty next! It will definitely clear up your thinking on natural rights. It seems to me that Rothbard was a genius, so his argument is worth serious consideration.
By the way, Economics in One Lesson is on my list, even though I think I understand most of Hazlitt's arguments from watching interviews and lectures from the Mises Institute on iTunes. I have read The Revolution: A Manifesto and have also started For a New Liberty. What did you think of Introduction to Economic Reasoning? Does it have much to add beyond Hazlitt, Rothbard, and Ron Paul?
LeeO:What did you think of Introduction to Economic Reasoning? Does it have much to add beyond Hazlitt, Rothbard, and Ron Paul?
It's sort of like an academic version of Economics in One Lesson, meaning it is in textbook-ish form. The first section talks about logical reasoning and such. The rest is sort of like Economics in One Lesson in that it takes a few examples (price controls, etc) and applies them to the reasoning.
Thanks. It looks like a great resource.