wilderness: laminustacitus:Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light, or that one did not account for element C. Well, as you say, "more experience can bring to light". So experience proves something. How do you argue against something that you use as your counter-argument? Baffling
laminustacitus:Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light, or that one did not account for element C.
Well, as you say, "more experience can bring to light". So experience proves something. How do you argue against something that you use as your counter-argument? Baffling
Whatever it "proves" is at best problematic, experience can only shine light on what is the best out of all of your hypotheses, it can not prove them as true.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
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."
hashem: Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people.
Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people.
This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones.
I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that.
Juan:Hey Lam, I think right now you're experiencing a computer screen in front of you with some stuff written on it ? Do you think that experience proves nothing ? Why do you bother to reply ? Also, you don't think that your experiences at least 'prove' your existence...or something ?
Keep in mind I was not critiquing reality, but rather our understanding of phenomena through experience - two different animals.
scineram: hashem: Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
scineram:Good laws will come out of that.
hashem: First let me point out that you did not read my post, or you wouldn't bring up these misunderstandings. If you did, then you didn't comprehend what you read. Wilmot of Rochester:Seems like a naturalistic fallacy mixed in with an ingoring of the argument on the subjectivist side. Hardly a thorough refutation of natural law. Try again. Wilmot of Rochester:That it is natural for man to be rational...does not mean that it is what man ought to be, which is the point of morality. Natural law does not state what "ought" or "should" be done. This is the biggest misunderstanding about natural law. Rothbard:The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, "goodness" is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; "goodness" is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes: The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. . . . Why is the natural good? . . . [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and . . . the most empirical and . . . rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good-whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.' In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature. After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wild asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics: "why are such principles felt to be binding on me?" How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's subjective value scale? Because the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man. The values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action. Wilmot of Rochester:Who says what the objective good is? Rothbard:One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out!
First let me point out that you did not read my post, or you wouldn't bring up these misunderstandings. If you did, then you didn't comprehend what you read.
Wilmot of Rochester:Seems like a naturalistic fallacy mixed in with an ingoring of the argument on the subjectivist side.
Hardly a thorough refutation of natural law. Try again.
Wilmot of Rochester:That it is natural for man to be rational...does not mean that it is what man ought to be, which is the point of morality.
Natural law does not state what "ought" or "should" be done. This is the biggest misunderstanding about natural law.
Rothbard:The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, "goodness" is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; "goodness" is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. Thus, Professor Cropsey writes: The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. . . . Why is the natural good? . . . [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and . . . the most empirical and . . . rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good-whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.' In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature. After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wild asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics: "why are such principles felt to be binding on me?" How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's subjective value scale? Because the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man. The values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action.
The classical [natural law] doctrine is that each thing is excellent in the degree to which it can do the things for which its species is naturally equipped. . . . Why is the natural good? . . . [Because] there is neither a way nor a reason to prevent ourselves from distinguishing between useless and serviceable beasts, for example; and . . . the most empirical and . . . rational standard of the serviceable, or the limit of the thing's activity, is set by its nature. We do not judge elephants to be good because they are natural; or because nature is morally good-whatever that would mean. We judge a particular elephant to be good by the light of what elephant nature makes it possible for elephants to do and to be.'
In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature.
After stating that ethics, for man as for any other entity, are determined by investigating verifiable existing tendencies of that entity, Wild asks a question crucial to all non-theological ethics: "why are such principles felt to be binding on me?" How do such universal tendencies of human nature become incorporated into a person's subjective value scale? Because
the factual needs which underlie the whole procedure are common to man. The values founded on them are universal. Hence, if I made no mistake in my tendential analysis of human nature, and if I understand myself, I must exemplify the tendency and must feel it subjectively as an imperative urge to action.
Wilmot of Rochester:Who says what the objective good is?
Rothbard:One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. To ask what is man's nature is to invite the answer. Go thou and study and find out!
Hashem, I read your post and I responded. I don't think it's a really great counter on your part to simply say, "that is hardly a thorough refutation..."
Why isn't it a thorough refutation? To say that natural law is the ethical standard because it's in man's nature to be reason and reason shows natural law does not say anything about why natural law is ethical; it merely states that natural law is, well, natural.
Now, you say that natural law is not about what should be done, well good, because it does very little to convince me; however, if that is so, then why does the author use terms like "good" and "best"? My objection to you is that neither you, nor the author you cite, particularly addresses why man should act according to his nature. Is it because natural law brings about most happiness or is it just because it's right?
existence is elsewhere
laminustacitus:Keep in mind I was not critiquing reality, but rather our understanding of phenomena through experience - two different animals.
hashem: laminustacitus:Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light Except that the history of outlining natural law dates back to Aristotle. It has been outlined by a series of geniuses. You have not disproved their findings, and I doubt anyone here has the capacity to. Thus, Rothbard's natural law (as the most consistent compilation of the findings of the others) stands.
laminustacitus:Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light
Except that the history of outlining natural law dates back to Aristotle. It has been outlined by a series of geniuses. You have not disproved their findings, and I doubt anyone here has the capacity to. Thus, Rothbard's natural law (as the most consistent compilation of the findings of the others) stands.
Could you please really stop acting like you can throw out a couple names, and act as if that finishes the debate. If you desire to debate, then make a point, and I will then counter your point, if you do not desire to debate, if you believe that philosophy has been perfected, then please do not summon out your favorite philosophers as if I'm going to summon up my favorites we're going to battle with them pokemon style, argumenta ad verecundiam are very annoying.
So, mind giving me a rational argument?
laminustacitus: wilderness: laminustacitus:Experience proves nothing, experience can only prove one hypothesis as better than another; however, it may be that there is a better hypothesis out there once one realizes errors that only more experience can bring to light, or that one did not account for element C. Well, as you say, "more experience can bring to light". So experience proves something. How do you argue against something that you use as your counter-argument? Baffling Whatever it "proves" is at best problematic, experience can only shine light on what is the best out of all of your hypotheses, it can not prove them as true.
What is best is true, I don't know what problems you are having with "prove". Of course what is best is true is contextual and time oriented.
Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness...
Nitroadict: He might as well declared "The End of History" while he's at it. I mean if nobody bothered to come up with anything better, would Rothbard have bothered writing half of what he wrote? Original objections may or may not originate out of this thread, but that doesn't rule out it won't elsewhere at another time.
He might as well declared "The End of History" while he's at it. I mean if nobody bothered to come up with anything better, would Rothbard have bothered writing half of what he wrote?
Original objections may or may not originate out of this thread, but that doesn't rule out it won't elsewhere at another time.
Of course something better can come along, but I don't sit on my hands waiting for it. This seems to be armchairing by you Nitro.
Wilmot of Rochester: Now, you say that natural law is not about what should be done, well good, because it does very little to convince me; however, if that is so, then why does the author use terms like "good" and "best"? My objection to you is that neither you, nor the author you cite, particularly addresses why man should act according to his nature. Is it because natural law brings about most happiness or is it just because it's right?
I value the pursuit of happiness [eudaimonia; (flourishing, quality, well-being)] or in other words, pursue excellence (arete).
laminustacitus: ...battle with them pokemon style...
...battle with them pokemon style...
I have a ten headed monster that shoots fireballs and can walk on water what do you have?
wilderness: laminustacitus: ...battle with them pokemon style... I have a ten headed monster that shoots fireballs and can walk on water what do you have?
I've got a flying ice-bird that can shoot electricity.
laminustacitus: wilderness: laminustacitus: ...battle with them pokemon style... I have a ten headed monster that shoots fireballs and can walk on water what do you have? I've got a flying ice-bird that can shoot electricity.
Can it shoot ten bolts of electricity at once? If not, then I think mine has more damage capability.
Damn Nitro, you came out of nowhere with Chuck Norris! I never saw him coming. My eye was on the ice-bird the whole time. You win!
I must admit absolute, utter defeat at the hands of Nitrodict's Chuck Norris.
wilderness: scineram: hashem: Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that. Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness...
Nitroadict: wilderness: scineram: hashem: Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that. Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness... Captain, I am detecting copious amounts of sarcasm from the quoted post's last sentence :)
Captain, I am detecting copious amounts of sarcasm from the quoted post's last sentence :)
I don't get it. Explain please.
scineram: This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that.
And you're telling me that MY argument is bad? hahahaha.
Nitroadict:He might as well declared "The End of History" while he's at it. I mean if nobody bothered to come up with anything better, would Rothbard have bothered writing half of what he wrote? Original objections may or may not originate out of this thread, but that doesn't rule out it won't elsewhere at another time.
I doubt based on my experiences here that anyone on these forums has the capacity to come up with an original objection which Rothbard has not already preempted or refuted. They might come from somewhere else, yes. But not from here. The people here haven't read The Ethics of Liberty enough to fully comprehend it, and they CERTAINLY haven't read ALL the major natural law works leading up to it enough to refute the entire tradition -- and certainly not with a one-liner that refuses to quote any specific point they are challenging.
Wilmot of Rochester:To say that natural law is the ethical standard because it's in man's nature
Because that's wrong. And because I've pointed this out several times. Natural Law is NOT ethics. Ethics are DERIVED FROM natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. I'm surprised at the inability of people here to comprehend that simple statement -- hence why I can legitimately doubt the capacity of anyone here to refute Rothbard.
laminustacitus:Could you please really stop acting like you can throw out a couple names, and act as if that finishes the debate. If you desire to debate, then make a point, and I will then counter your point...So, mind giving me a rational argument?
The debate has been finished. I quoted Rothbard and nobody has disproved him. Case closed. What people HAVE done is REFUSE to quote him because they can't disprove him. THEY have opted to evade debate, not ME. They have instead intentionally avoided challenging specific points in favor of rattling off random statements which have already been disproved and preempted. I have had to repeat myself more than once because people refuse to challenge a specific point. I am not the one avoiding rational debate.
It's easy to spout random questions without ever confronting the most authoritative master of the subject. It's easy to attempt original arguments and to avoid challenging specific points. Anyone can say "I think you're wrong" or "I feel like you're wrong". It's harder to say "Rothbard said this, and here is why he is wrong."
Rothbard proved natural law. I presented his case. Now destroy it, or be silenced.
hashem: laminustacitus:Could you please really stop acting like you can throw out a couple names, and act as if that finishes the debate. If you desire to debate, then make a point, and I will then counter your point...So, mind giving me a rational argument? The debate has been finished. I quoted Rothbard and nobody has disproved him. Case closed. What people HAVE done is REFUSE to quote him because they can't disprove him. THEY have opted to evade debate, not ME, and they have made instead futile attempts at original arguments. Rothbard proved natural law. I presented his case. Now destroy it, or be silenced.
The debate has been finished. I quoted Rothbard and nobody has disproved him. Case closed. What people HAVE done is REFUSE to quote him because they can't disprove him. THEY have opted to evade debate, not ME, and they have made instead futile attempts at original arguments.
I'd like you to know I never once touched your debate on natural law, not once, rather I made a comment to someoneelse's post, you proceeded to say "Rothbard disproved it", and sit on your laurels as if it was a de facto victory. Guess what, it isn't; so, would you mind giving me the reasoning behind this statement in responce to me:
That's all that I'm interested in for I don't care much for natural law. Please, save the parroting other theorists for another conversation, I don't care much for it.
laminustacitus:That's all that I'm interested in for I don't care much for natural law. Please, save the parroting other theorists for another conversation, I don't care much for it.
Utilitarian?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
laminustacitus:That's all that I'm interested in for I don't care much for natural law.
Dude, you're in a topic called "Proving Natural Law"! Did you know that?
laminustacitus: Please, save the parroting other theorists for another conversation, I don't care much for it.
I am citing theorists because this is a topic on natural law, and I can debate rationally. Please save your lack of citing any authority on the subject for aruging with toddlers.
hashem: The debate has been finished. I quoted Rothbard and nobody has disproved him. Case closed. What people HAVE done is REFUSE to quote him because they can't disprove him. THEY have opted to evade debate, not ME. They have instead intentionally avoided challenging specific points in favor of rattling off random statements which have already been disproved and preempted. I have had to repeat myself more than once because people refuse to challenge a specific point. I am not the one avoiding rational debate. It's easy to spout random questions without ever confronting the most authoritative master of the subject. It's easy to attempt original arguments and to avoid challenging specific points. Anyone can say "I think you're wrong" or "I feel like you're wrong". It's harder to say "Rothbard said this, and here is why he is wrong." Rothbard proved natural law. I presented his case. Now destroy it, or be silenced.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:That's all that I'm interested in for I don't care much for natural law. Please, save the parroting other theorists for another conversation, I don't care much for it. Utilitarian?
As far as Austrian economics goes, yes for I desire the strongest case for a capitalist society. Nevertheless, I'm a Roman Catholic who believes in Cathoic morality. Further, natural law holds no water once a deity is taken out of the equation, yet my original statement was far more pithy, and gets to the point far quicked.
laminustacitus:Further, natural law holds no water once a deity is taken out of the equation
Again, an unproved statement with no support. Again, you refuse to cite all the evidence I provided COMPLETELY TO THE CONTRARY of your statement, because if you did, you wouldn't be able to make that claim.
hashem: laminustacitus:That's all that I'm interested in for I don't care much for natural law. Dude, you're in a topic called "Proving Natural Law"! Did you know that?
You could have never replied to my assertion, then this conversation would have never happen - learn to recognize what's slightly off-topic, and if you're going to reply to it, do not make a fuss about the author's intentions.
hashem: laminustacitus: Please, save the parroting other theorists for another conversation, I don't care much for it. I am citing theorists because this is a topic on natural law, and I can debate rationally.
I am citing theorists because this is a topic on natural law, and I can debate rationally.
Mind just giving me some reasons? I don't care what authors they come from, they can come from Comte, or Marx for all I care.
hashem:Please save your lack of citing any authority on the subject for aruging with toddlers.
I'm sorry I actually bother to elucidate a thesis rather than block-quoting an author.
Furthermore, mind giving me some reasons why my comment was wrong? Afterall, just a couple would content me.
laminustacitus:Nevertheless, I'm a Roman Catholic who believes in Cathoic morality. Further, natural law holds no water once a deity is taken out of the equation, yet my original statement was far more pithy, and gets to the point far quicked.
So wait. Unless natural rights has God in the picture...then it is meaningless?
hashem: laminustacitus:Further, natural law holds no water once a deity is taken out of the equation Again, an unproved statement with no support.
Again, an unproved statement with no support.
It was an off-topic comment about my personal philsophy!
Furthermore, whence does the natural law cometh? Why would anyone obey natural law? Why is it not us being fooled by randomness? Those are all comments a non-theistic flavor of natural law cannot answer in my humble opinion.
hashem: Again, you refuse to cite all the evidence I provided COMPLETELY TO THE CONTRARY of your statement, because if you did, you wouldn't be able to make that claim.
You cited no evidence to the contrary of my statement:
A argumentum ad verecundiam is at best a clever rhetorical tool, at its worst its demagaugery. If you're going to reply to me, give me evidence in your post for I'm not hunting through the entire thread for your evidence after I made a comment on someoneelse's post.
hashem: hashem: The debate has been finished. I quoted Rothbard and nobody has disproved him. Case closed. What people HAVE done is REFUSE to quote him because they can't disprove him. THEY have opted to evade debate, not ME. They have instead intentionally avoided challenging specific points in favor of rattling off random statements which have already been disproved and preempted. I have had to repeat myself more than once because people refuse to challenge a specific point. I am not the one avoiding rational debate. It's easy to spout random questions without ever confronting the most authoritative master of the subject. It's easy to attempt original arguments and to avoid challenging specific points. Anyone can say "I think you're wrong" or "I feel like you're wrong". It's harder to say "Rothbard said this, and here is why he is wrong." Rothbard proved natural law. I presented his case. Now destroy it, or be silenced.
???
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Nevertheless, I'm a Roman Catholic who believes in Cathoic morality. Further, natural law holds no water once a deity is taken out of the equation, yet my original statement was far more pithy, and gets to the point far quicked. So wait. Unless natural rights has God in the picture...then it is meaningless?
In short: a deity implies order in the universe, order implies natural law. Without a creator, the universe can very much just be chaos where we, due to the nature of our understanding in respect to our sensibilies, are susceptible to being fooled by randomeness.
laminustacitus:In short: a deity implies order in the universe, order implies natural law. Without a creator, the universe can very much just be chaos where we, due to the nature of our understanding in respect to our sensibilies, are susceptible to being fooled by randomeness.
Where do you see chaos in the realm of nature? Has rain suddenly been falling upwards lately?
hashem: Wilmot of Rochester:To say that natural law is the ethical standard because it's in man's nature Because that's wrong. And because I've pointed this out several times. Natural Law is NOT ethics. Ethics are DERIVED FROM natural law. Natural law is the laws of nature. I'm surprised at the inability of people here to comprehend that simple statement -- hence why I can legitimately doubt the capacity of anyone here to refute Rothbard.
Yes. Good points. When I stated natural law of human nature is the universal standard of conduct, it would have been better and thus more precise of me to state the natural law of human nature is a universal standard (of human nature). I should have left out "of conduct". That latter point can be perceived as defining only ethics. I wasn't trying to focus natural law of human nature only on ethics. I'm sure there is human biology which would provide laws of human nature that are not of the science of ethics. Human nature and the laws thereof are not only about ethics. A quick google search of human nature and linking into wikipedia brings up various fields of study. Though a quick browse through wiki reveals some unnumbered misunderstandings and wide variety of positions that lack liberty as an orientation, imo.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:In short: a deity implies order in the universe, order implies natural law. Without a creator, the universe can very much just be chaos where we, due to the nature of our understanding in respect to our sensibilies, are susceptible to being fooled by randomeness. Where do you see chaos in the realm of nature? Has rain suddenly been falling upwards lately?
Because of that phenomenon, I then formulate my best hypothesis to explain it; nevertheless, I should always regard my understanding of phenomena as problematic at best. For instance: it would seem that objects always have weight, and many ancient philosophers thought that to be an a priori characteristic of objects; however, that is not true, and those philosophers were fooled by randomness: just because I have never seen it, does not mean it does not exist, or that it does not happen, all that it means is that I have never experienced it hitherto.
laminustacitus:Because of that phenomenon, I then formulate my best hypothesis to explain it; nevertheless, I should always regard my understanding of phenomena as problematic at best. For instance: it would seem that objects always have weight, and many ancient philosophers thought that to be an a priori characteristic of objects; however, that is not true, and those philosophers were fooled by randomness: just because I have never seen it, does not mean it does not exist, or that it does not happen, all that it means is that I have never experienced it hitherto.
So without God, the world is basically a nihilistic environment? No objectivity?
Anarchist Cain: So without God, the world is basically a nihilistic environment? No objectivity?
No, but there is no way to prove that it is not. Nevertheless, the world does seem to be ordered seeing that there are conscious beings walking around God, or no God (please don't think I'm making an argument from design apologetic assertion here), so feel free to make natural law assertions, I personally do not find them convincing so I search out different pastures.
wilderness: Nitroadict: wilderness: scineram: hashem: Rothbard has done the work for us. He has outlined natural law. He didn't just read a book or 2 or 3 or 10 and make this stuff up. He hasn't heard just a single objection, or 2 objections or 10. He read all the important natural law views from it's entire tradition, and he quotes the most notable ones. He confronted and refuted every possible objection. There is no use trying to come up with an original objection. If you doubt natural law, then read the first 2 chapters of The Ethics of Liberty. If you still doubt it, then quote the parts you doubt, list your objections, and present your evidence. Until then, Rothbard stands. He will not be defeated by internet junkies or even semi-intelligent people. This is incredible. Such hubris is simply amazing. You never provided a proof, only arguments. And bad ones. I will tell you what the nature of man is. To kill, to steal, to rape, to cheat, to enslave to satisfy his needs and desires, to do anything necessary for his survival. Ever since the biginnings of history. Good laws will come out of that. Good laws are to steal, rape, kill? Craziness... Captain, I am detecting copious amounts of sarcasm from the quoted post's last sentence :) I don't get it. Explain please.
I meant that it sounded like scineram knew they weren't "good laws", & was attempting to show that if people perceive those as natural laws, or if they rationalize that these are natural laws per nature (i.e. animals do this, humans are animals, etc.), that that conception of natural law wouldn't bode well for libertarianism, & would bode well for coercion (Statism), but he was being sarcastic.AFAIK, many already do rationalize such, naturalist fallacy & all that.
laminustacitus:Nevertheless, the world does seem to be ordered seeing that there are conscious beings walking around God, or no God (please don't think I'm making an argument from design apologetic assertion here), so feel free to make natural law assertions, I personally do not find them convincing so I search out different pastures.
So there is order, but we have no way of proving there is order, nor can we ascertain this order and deduce objective truths from it?