I. Ryan: jdcoffey: Haha, I laughed a dorky laugh to myself. I need to find a picture of "Natural Law" and post it as the referent! I sincerely hope that that is a joke. If I say that "imagine a red sofa" but I do not provide a "picture" of "red", then I did not pose a circular definition because both the speaker and the listener understand the referent "red".
jdcoffey: Haha, I laughed a dorky laugh to myself. I need to find a picture of "Natural Law" and post it as the referent!
Haha, I laughed a dorky laugh to myself. I need to find a picture of "Natural Law" and post it as the referent!
I sincerely hope that that is a joke. If I say that "imagine a red sofa" but I do not provide a "picture" of "red", then I did not pose a circular definition because both the speaker and the listener understand the referent "red".
It was definitely a light-humored joke. Text doesn't convey tone of voice unfortunately. I understand what you said in your post.
nirgrahamUK: unless they dont.
unless they dont.
A certain number of languages exists that do not differentiate between blue and green. Therefore, if a speaker of that language were learning English, then one would need to provide physical examples of the referent of blue and the referent of green in order to teach them.
That does not change my point.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:And what is a legitimately enforceable claim?
Claims that can bring forth obligations individuals have towards other individuals and when they are transgressed, reparations can be required.
Example: Tony is obligated to treat X in a non-violent manner and X must do the same except if Tony is coercing X or X is coercing Tony with the threat of violent force.
I. Ryan:What causes a claim to be legitimately enforceable?
Rational deduction concerning the welfare of man.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I. Ryan: What is "Natural Law"?
What is "Natural Law"?
I don't have any pictures of Natural Law for you to look at, but according to my argument if Natural Law exists then it flows necesarily from God. I'm not trying here to prove that God exists, but for the sake of providing an example of what Natural Law might be I'll use the Judeo-Christian God since that's what I'm most familiary with and perhaps what other users here are most familiar with.
In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, and oppression.
Some people also like to use the NAP, which I think is a fine example of how a non-theistic group of people might coexist peacefully, but I wouldn't consider the NAP Natural Law.
Anarchist Cain: There is a section in the link I gave you labeled: Metaphysical Basis for Natural Rights, right after that is the espitemological basis for it. I think you may find your answer there.
There is a section in the link I gave you labeled: Metaphysical Basis for Natural Rights, right after that is the espitemological basis for it. I think you may find your answer there.
Long ducks out of providing an epistemological basis:
"In other words, what is the epistemological basis of Natural Law?
Without some answers to these questions — or at least, without some hope that they can in principle be answered — any political theory that appeals to Natural Law is going to be on shaky ground.
At the end of Part III, in Autumn 1994, I promised that the next installment would consider "The Basis of Natural Law." Well, it's been over two years, but now I return at last to the promised topic. A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article;"
He goes on to handle objections that have nothing to do with a priori logical proof, so this is not what I asked for.
Why anarchy fails
Now you are asking for a priori logical proof, before it was just logical proof and before that you wanted someone to 'show you' natural law
What is this this nonsense of Long ducking out? It is Objection Three.
After actually reading this article will you next resort to Descartes and ask: 'Well how do we know anything is true!?'
Please show me where he has supplied any logical proof, either a priori (which is implicit in the idea of a purely logical proof anyway) or otherwise. Long's "Objection Three" doesn't do so, nor does it even attempt to do so. It tries to show parallels with science, when science itself is not based on logical proof so is not an avenue of pursuit that could possibly answer the OP.
AJ:Please show me where he has supplied any logical proof, either a priori (which is implicit in the idea of a purely logical proof anyway) or otherwise. Long's "Objection Three" doesn't do so, nor does it even attempt to do so. It tries to show parallels with science, when science itself is not based on logical proof so is not an avenue of pursuit that could possibly answer the OP.
Any logical proof of what? That natural law exists in the first place? And what is this nonsense on natural science not being based on logical proof? Are you trying to imply to me that the sun isn't in the center of the universe or the sky isn't blue?
Anarchist Cain: AJ:Please show me where he has supplied any logical proof, either a priori (which is implicit in the idea of a purely logical proof anyway) or otherwise. Long's "Objection Three" doesn't do so, nor does it even attempt to do so. It tries to show parallels with science, when science itself is not based on logical proof so is not an avenue of pursuit that could possibly answer the OP. Any logical proof of what? That natural law exists in the first place?
Any logical proof of what? That natural law exists in the first place?
Any proof of any natural law theory.
Anarchist Cain:And what is this nonsense on natural science not being based on logical proof? Are you trying to imply to me that the sun isn't in the center of the universe or the sky isn't blue?
Science is about what appears to be (empirical facts). I purport that natural law is also. Neither have been shown to be based fundamentally on logic; that doesn't mean either theory is useless. It simply means that trying to logically prove either theory a priori would be misguided.
AJ:Any proof of any natural law theory
That there is such a thing as 'natural law theory' or that 'natural law' tenets actually affect individuals?
AJ:Science is about what appears to be (empirical facts). I purport that natural law is also. Neither have been shown to be based fundamentally on logic; that doesn't mean either theory is useless. It simply means that trying to logically prove either theory a priori would be misguided.
The natural sciences cannot be deduced a priori so that is why you fail to 'logical prove' natural science a priori. You are trying to exclaim that natural law theory isn't meaningless, yet we somehow cannot explain it which leads me to question, if we cannot explain natural law according to you then why do you deduce that it isn't meaningless?
Again I point out Objection Three on Long's article which is exactly the objection that you have.
AJ:Science is about what appears to be (empirical facts).
It simply means that trying to logically prove either theory a priori would be misguided.
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."
Therefore all knowledge is mere description/narrative? Neo, where's my tight latex bodysuit?! Anyways, my counterargument to that is this: if knowledge is purely description then all attempts to forge any causality is flawed. But here's the catch, it seems in terms of physics that's not the case. Even when considering what seems incidental such as the travel path of an electron (as invisioned in quantum electrodynamics), there is still real invariant parameters of operation that cannot ever be overriden. Any argument to the contrary is based on what I call the "all possible worlds" fallacy (the idea that there exists worlds (mentally conceived) that contradict the given fact or argument, even though there's no evidence that such an alternate world existing in the first place or without finding a means to bridge said world with ours).
So, can you show me a world where humans exist that don't have a certain set of parameters for their operation (physical and social)? If not, do you concede that science isn't always description?
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Anarchist Cain: AJ:Any proof of any natural law theory That there is such a thing as 'natural law theory' or that 'natural law' tenets actually affect individuals?
Proof of whatever those who say "natural law is proven" mean by that declaration.
Anarchist Cain: You are trying to exclaim that natural law theory isn't meaningless, yet we somehow cannot explain it which leads me to question, if we cannot explain natural law according to you then why do you deduce that it isn't meaningless?
You've stopped making sense and are putting words in my mouth. I'll take that as a "No" in answer to the OP.
Anyone else?
Do we really have to bring in quantum mechanics to prove natural law?
Anyway, the science issue is another can of worms which I would be happy to argue in another thread. For now, I refer back to the OP:
AJ:Can someone direct me to a logical proof of natural law where the terms used are rigorously and unambiguously defined? I looked in The Ethics of Liberty, but alas there was nothing even resembling a logical deduction there. I looked to the Proving Natural Law thread, but the OP just quoted The Ethics of Liberty. I looked elsewhere and found a logical derivation, but the author failed to precisely define his terms. Alternatively, create your own proof.
Long did not supply a proof, and his statements about science - whether true or false - in any case do not constitute a formal logical proof, so do not answer the OP. Can someone kindly supply a proof and move the other stuff to a different thread?
AJ: Do we really have to bring in nature to prove natural law?
Do we really have to bring in nature to prove natural law?
Not to seem coy, but FTFY. I'm not sure what else I can add to that edit, but if you're not able to grasp it alone, then take it as a hint that Nature and its children are not results of blind chance (and yes I'm an atheist that supposes a godless teleology).
Are you trying to say that the basis for natural law is science? If so, have you heard of praxeology?
In either case, the OP remains unanswered.
AJ:Are you trying to say that the basis for natural law is science? If so, have you heard of praxeology?
No, I'm saying nature is the basis of natural law. One can reason things out in a manner that is empirical without falling for the bullshit that what is known empirically must be purely incidental or description (aka narrative). *sighs* If you don't get it, then I won't bother.
jdcoffey:Premise 3: If humans and all other entities in the Universe are simply the products of the events and physical material since the beginning of the universe and have no eternal significance, there is no such thing as objective morality.
AJ:Proof of whatever those who say "natural law is proven" mean by that declaration.
I tried to show that but you said 'no no Long isn't 'supplying' enough'
AJ:You've stopped making sense and are putting words in my mouth. I'll take that as a "No" in answer to the OP.
Putting words in your mouth?
The bold is my doing.
You have clearly stated that natural law isn't 'useless' yet you are also clearly implying that we cannot figure out natural law because it cannot be 'logically proven.' Therefore my question still stands: How do you know if Natural law is useful or useless without actually being able to logically deduce it?
You are clearly being the unpleasable skeptic. No proof is good enough nor is there ever enough of it. Perhaps an admirable trait in small degrees, however, how do you deduce self-consciousness? How do you know you are not REALLY dreaming right now? If your answer is akin to 'Well I don't know' then might I suggest actually figuring that out before you come to deduce ethics.
Well you're right, AC, I said something I cannot easily prove when I said the endeavor of proving natural law was misguided, so I delete that statement for now. It wasn't necessary anyway.
I still just want an answer to the OP: a formal logical proof of whatever those who say "natural law is proven" mean by that, using unambiguous well-defined terms. Again, I only ask that so insistently because people claim there is a logical proof.
jdcoffey: I personally agree with everything you say here. It is my personal opinion that God and free will do exist, and that determinism is bogus. It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it. I doubt that's what you were getting at, though. Perhaps you mean to say that there is simply the possibility of "something" outside of physical time and space that is incomprehensible to us but that does not exhibit the traits of a God figure. If that's the case, I can't see how it figures in our discussion since these things (since they don't exhibit the traits of God) are outside the realm the Universe operates in and thus wouldn't affect it.
I personally agree with everything you say here. It is my personal opinion that God and free will do exist, and that determinism is bogus. It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it.
I doubt that's what you were getting at, though. Perhaps you mean to say that there is simply the possibility of "something" outside of physical time and space that is incomprehensible to us but that does not exhibit the traits of a God figure. If that's the case, I can't see how it figures in our discussion since these things (since they don't exhibit the traits of God) are outside the realm the Universe operates in and thus wouldn't affect it.
Do you believe that a God must exist in order to 'bridge the gap' between the comprehensible world and the incomprehensible world? If you do believe that, why?
jdcoffey: Morality is to me what I defined it initially. Do not mistake the quote from Mr. Ruse as changing the definition. Morality as I definited it does not exist to the naturalist, but you could still use the term in a loose sense as Mr. Ruse does when describing the biological adaptation.
Morality is to me what I defined it initially. Do not mistake the quote from Mr. Ruse as changing the definition. Morality as I definited it does not exist to the naturalist, but you could still use the term in a loose sense as Mr. Ruse does when describing the biological adaptation.
I will continue to use the term "morality" in order to allow me to explain my arguments.
jdcoffey: While I should have been more clear, those statements aren't contradictory. The second statement applies to what humans can conceive, the first statement is far more broad. It pertains to what can possibly be conceived, not limited to the human mind.
While I should have been more clear, those statements aren't contradictory. The second statement applies to what humans can conceive, the first statement is far more broad. It pertains to what can possibly be conceived, not limited to the human mind.
Is the greatest possible being that "can possibly be conceived" different than simply "the greatest possible being"?
jdcoffey: No, it does not imply that. Knowing what will happen does not mean that the events have been predetermined.
No, it does not imply that. Knowing what will happen does not mean that the events have been predetermined.
If I infallibly know that event X will occur at time Y, then that implies that that event is determined to occur at time Y. If that event does not occur at time Y, then that implies that my knowledge was fallible.
jdcoffey: That is logically impossible. As I said earlier, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from his moral nature. God cannot impute a contradictory moral code because doing so is inconsistent with his nature.
That is logically impossible. As I said earlier, God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from his moral nature. God cannot impute a contradictory moral code because doing so is inconsistent with his nature.
If "God cannot impute a contradictory moral code because doing so is inconsistent with his nature", then that implies a limitation of potency and therefore non-omnipotence.
The moral code of the human mind includes a revulsion toward murder. However, it is entirely possible to revolt against such nature and murder some one. And, similarly, it would be entirely possible to impute to a creation of ours an immoral-to-us moral code.
jdcoffey: I don't have any pictures of Natural Law for you to look at, but according to my argument if Natural Law exists then it flows necesarily from God. I'm not trying here to prove that God exists, but for the sake of providing an example of what Natural Law might be I'll use the Judeo-Christian God since that's what I'm most familiary with and perhaps what other users here are most familiar with. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, and oppression. Some people also like to use the NAP, which I think is a fine example of how a non-theistic group of people might coexist peacefully, but I wouldn't consider the NAP Natural Law.
And, how did the "love your neighbor as you love yourself" code originate? And, why is it considered "natural law" when the NAP is not? And, why is theistic peaceful coexistence somehow different than atheistic peaceful coexistence? Are you a polylogist?
AJ: Well you're right, AC, I said something I cannot easily prove when I said the endeavor of proving natural law was misguided, so I delete that statement for now. It wasn't necessary anyway. I still just want an answer to the OP: a formal logical proof of whatever those who say "natural law is proven" mean by that, using unambiguous well-defined terms. Again, I only ask that so insistently because people claim there is a logical proof.
No such proof exists. However, I am sure that you understand that by now.
Anarchist Cain:How do you know you are not REALLY dreaming right now?
That is very true, however, I do not attempt to prove to others I am not dreaming right now.
You've come up with a more efficient demolition of natural law "proof" than I ever could: insofar as natural law theorists make extremely strong logical claims, they can expect extreme logical skepticism in response.
jdcoffey: It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it.
It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it.
You claim that God is omnipresent. And, now, you claim that he exists outside spacetime. If you do not exist somewhere, then you do not exist everywhere. Therefore, those two statements are clearly contradictory.
AJ, do you allow yourself to know things that are unproven or unprovable, or not?
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
nirgrahamUK: AJ, do you allow yourself to know things that are unproven or unprovable, or not?
Of course, in the sense that I work with what I observe - all the while realizing, for instance, that it could all be a dream. Still, even in a dream, if someone tried to say they've "proven" a statement, I'd still ask to see the proof.
And if what they were trying to prove was natural law, I would say to them, "Why do you need to try to prove that? Haven't you realized this could all be a dream? All you need to do is persuade. If you purport to logically prove something with no assumptions, you open yourself up unnecessary criticism of the whole package deal of NAP, property rights, and libertarian concepts themselves (it would after all be nice to get rid of the State, even if only the State in this dreamworld so we can better enjoy it)."
AJ: if someone tried to say they've "proven" a statement, I'd still ask to see the proof.
has anyone ever shown you an actual proof for any statement they made which you felt was controversial before you had seen the proof? im curious what it was?
AJ:it would after all be nice to get rid of the State, even if only the State in this dreamworld so we can better enjoy it)."
you couldnt prove that 'we can better enjoy it' by your definition of prove.
nirgrahamUK: has anyone ever shown you an actual proof for any statement they made which you felt was controversial before you had seen the proof? im curious what it was?
No. It is impossible to do X before you do X.
feeling someones conclusive statement was controversial/doubtful before you are presented with that persons proof which justified the statements truth , and therefore disabused you of the notion that it was possibly false, is not impossible on the praxeological grounds you are invoking, I Ryan.
nirgrahamUK: AJ: if someone tried to say they've "proven" a statement, I'd still ask to see the proof. has anyone ever shown you an actual proof for any statement they made which you felt was controversial before you had seen the proof? im curious what it was?
The infinite series 1/n^2 converges to a finite number.
nirgrahamUK: AJ:it would after all be nice to get rid of the State, even if only the State in this dreamworld so we can better enjoy it)." you couldnt prove that 'we can better enjoy it' by your definition of prove.
Correct, but it wasn't meant to be a propositional statement, but merely a statement of persuasion, as in, "Hey, y'know - given the political positions we both apparently hold - don't you think we can better enjoy this dreamworld if we get rid of the State?" Statements of persuasion can be very useful, such as the opening of the Declaration of Independence. <-- Yes, this sentence is also a statement of persuasion.
AJ:"Why do you need to try to prove that? Haven't you realized this could all be a dream? All you need to do is persuade.
i do agree that i would be satisfied with effective persuasions that led to libertarian conclusions, i wouldnt weep over a 'lack of proofing'
nirgrahamUK: AJ:"Why do you need to try to prove that? Haven't you realized this could all be a dream? All you need to do is persuade. i do agree that i would be satisfied with effective persuasions that led to libertarian conclusions, i wouldnt weep over a 'lack of proofing'
Looks like we're in fundamental agreement then. In fact, "I wouldn't weep over a lack of proofing" is a concise statement of my whole point: some theorists have apparently "wept" over the lack of proofing, and believed they needed to do something about it, but they need not have (and I suggest - but do not say I can prove - that they must fail at it if they continue to try, with harmful results because such failure opens them to needless additional criticism).
I. Ryan: jdcoffey: It is also my personal opinion that God and his realm exist outside of space and time and that we cannot comprehend it. You claim that God is omnipresent. And, now, you claim that he exists outside spacetime. If you do not exist somewhere, then you do not exist everywhere. Therefore, those two statements are clearly contradictory.
If God is omnipresent then he exists everywhere. Outside of spacetime as well as inside spacetime.
Does anyone classify the 'non-aggression principle' as an 'axiom'? We will denote an 'axiom' as a 'necessary truth'. How you define a 'necessary truth' does not matter. I just want to know why do you allow your 'conception' of 'truth' to be compatible with 'ethics'.
Life is filled with misinterpretations, misrepresentations, and prodigal folklore.
i guess not in the sense of 'necessary truth' you are using. i suppose that somewhat justifies the choice of label natural law, as it resembles natural science which is contingent but discoverable through assuming realism and proceeding with a mix of critical deduction and induction...
its not necessarily true that in any possible universe the law of entropy must hold, that is to say, it is not necessarily true that the law of entropy holds. but we can discover that we are in a universe for which it does hold. in which case it is true, even though not by necessity. of course, that is with necessity being understood in the strictest possible sense
Anarcho-Mercantilist:How you define a 'necessary truth' does not matter.
I guess 'morality', in the descriptive sense, may have a 'truth' value as in the physical laws of the universe. For example, it is true that humans generally feel empathy for one another, avoid murder, and cooperate with one another. One may challenge this claim by arguing that not all humans feel empathy and cooperate, but the physical laws of the universe also behave in this same way. For example, if you classify the 'law of natural selection' as a physical law, it does not apply to all living organisms at all times. The law of natural selection states that organisms that successfully survive and reproduce will more likely pass on its genes to its successive generations. However, earth's climate may change, which might decrease the fitness of an organism's successors.
Not all physical laws apply correctly to all situations. Same thing with human's genetic composition. Each human has a different genetic composition. With different genes, not all humans may have the genes which force them to feel empathy for others. Therefore, we cannot possibly identify a 'standardized' set of hardwired 'moral' drives (such as empathy and remorse) within all humans. Not all humans feel empathy. Not all humans feel remorse.
We have previously discussed that the laws of logic can have two different senses: the normative sense and the descriptive sense. We have just shown the same thing with 'morality'.
nirgrahamUK: Anarcho-Mercantilist:How you define a 'necessary truth' does not matter.what if i define it to mean 'false' would that matter?
No it does not. I will go as far in rejecting the 'cognitivist/non-cognitivist' dichotomy itself.
First, we will define our terms: 'Ethical cognitivists' claim that ethical sentences express propositions. 'Ethical non-cognitivists' claim that ethical sentences do not express propositions.
The concepts of 'true' and 'false' is found in mathematics. However, the notions of 'truth' and 'false' do not 'exist out-there' as 'mind-independent' entities in 'objective reality'. For example, mathematical axioms are 'true' only by definition. So the notions of 'true' and 'false' can exist only by definition.
Just like in mathematics, you can define ethical sentences as either 'true' or 'false'. Even though ethical sentences may not be intrinsically 'true' or 'false', you can define them as either 'true' or 'false'.
We have proven that 'ethical cognitivists' merely have a differenent definition of 'truth' than the 'ethical non-cognitivists'. They define 'truth' broader than how the 'non-cognitivists' do.
Some may dispute the above claim because they cite that Kantian ethics and Molyneuvian ethics (which are 'cognitivist') are different from the 'non-cognitivist' ethical theories. However, even though those two ethical systems belong to 'ethical cognitivism', it still does not suggest that 'ethical cognitivism' necessarily endorses any concepts from Kantian ethics or Molyneuvian's UPB. 'Ethical cognitivists' does not necessarily endorse 'ethical apriorism' or reject Hume's moral sense theory. Even 'ethical subjectivism' can be 'cognitivist'! The difference between 'cognitivism' and 'non-cognitivism' is merely based on the definitions of 'truth'. All other associations of the terms 'cognitivism' and 'non-cognitivism' are irrelevant to their definitions.
So the difference between 'cognitivism' and 'non-cognitivism' is purely based on the different definitions of 'truth'. The 'cognitivists' merely have a broader definition of 'truth' than the 'non-cognitivists'.
One may choose to be a 'cognitivist' by merely expanding one's definition of 'truth'. One may choose to be a 'non-cognitivist' by defining 'truth' less broadly to exclude ethical sentences. Neither school of ethics is 'more correct' than the other. That merely depends on the definition of 'truth'.
This is why I reject the 'cognitivist/non-cognitivist' dichotomy.
AJ:That is very true, however, I do not attempt to prove to others I am not dreaming right now.
It was an additional question which was suppose to inspire introspection considering we are trying to establish logical proof. If you cannot sustain a basis for your own logical deduction [ thinking that you are really in a dream land ] then asking for logical proof of a system beyond your own introspection seems like a useless task.
AJ:You've come up with a more efficient demolition of natural law "proof" than I ever could: insofar as natural law theorists make extremely strong logical claims, they can expect extreme logical skepticism in response.
I enjoy talking about natural rights because everyone gets so bothered with economics and I'm not an economist and truly I think skepticism is healthy. It is good to ask question because that tests basic theories [ like I said your skepticism is beneifical in small degrees ] however, what I object to is extreme skepticism where one questions everything to the point of self-refutation.
And when skeptics trot out extreme sceptical nonsense, they can expect the converse in response. See how that works? It isn't a "demolition". Not even close. It's a barrel of laughs.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
A note regarding "extreme skepticism"...
It would be one thing if people were asserting the existence of something for which there was clear evidence, and we were insisting on perfect proof beyond that evidence.
But with objective natural rights that derive "ought" from "is", people are asserting something which may not even make logical sense, let alone be actually true.
Bringing what is potentially complete incoherence into the light of day is not extreme skepticism.