What Do You Think Of These Reasons Why Ssm Affects Marriage?

[centurion]

Natural law morality is some made up horsepoo whose only intellectual foundation is inferred from religious presumptions.  

 

Lol.

 

Natural law is inferred from the assumption that setting someone on fire for no good reason is wrong.  Also: that there is a metaphysical platform from which I can objectively say that setting someone on fire for no good reason is wrong.  But don't stop now.  I'm enjoying your thoughtful and well-constructed arguments.

[4588686]

  Also: that there is a metaphysical platform from which I can objectively say that setting someone on fire for no good reason is wrong.  

 

 

Ok.  I'd love to see it.  Demonstrate the natural law to me.  

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Men like Jefferson and Franklin were deists, but they were also a minority within a larger majority of white Protestant men.

You are right. I should have been more specific. The majority of the leading founding fathers, at least the ones we actually learn anything about, were not Christian. 

Edited May 31, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

Ok.  I'd love to see it.  Demonstrate the natural law to me.  

 

 

I see we've entered the standard radio silence which follows advocates of natural law being asked to provide a rational foundation for that belief.  Next we'll probably get some misdirection, some insistence that it's not worth arguing with me since I've already made up my mind, and then some more radio silence.  

[centurion]

I see we've entered the standard radio silence which follows advocates of natural law being asked to provide a rational foundation for that belief.  Next we'll probably get some misdirection, some insistence that it's not worth arguing with me since I've already made up my mind, and then some more radio silence.  

Actually, I was commuting home from the office.  Sorry to keep you waiting, but frankly it's not my responsibility to teach you about basic metaphysics, western logic, reason, or philosophy.  If you can't handle it I would suggest you stop commenting on it.  I can s

 

Calling something "horsepoo" hardly proves your point.  I could call your last few posts the work of a braying jackass.  I would be right, but I wouldn't prove anything one way or another.  But kudos for figuring out that you need God to have morality. 

[4588686]

Actually, I was commuting home from the office.  Sorry to keep you waiting, but frankly it's not my responsibility to teach you about basic metaphysics, western logic, reason, or philosophy.  If you can't handle it I would suggest you stop commenting on it.  I can s

 

Calling something "horsepoo" hardly proves your point.  I could call your last few posts the work of a braying jackass.  I would be right, but I wouldn't prove anything one way or another.  But kudos for figuring out that you need God to have morality. 

 

 

Can I call them or an I call them?  

 

Please note that this one post actually very nicely the order of my listed series of responses to anticipate.  First a bit of misdirection, and implication that I don't understand or am ignorant of basic philosophy, and then an implicit concession that he has no response to give.  

[4588686]

I'm not sure what 'Western logic' is since most places in the world today use the same logical systems.  But I'm pretty well acquainted with logic.  I've taken advanced courses in logic and am quite the fan of a number of 'western' logicians (Godel being at the top of the list, obviously).  

 

 

But I'm glad that your willing to admit that 'natural law' is merely a religious conjecture and that no serious thinking person should take it seriously outside of holding it as an article of religious faith.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Dang. I am partial to natural law as well, but you nailed that prediction, Hassy.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Can we start a debate on natural law? I'd actually really like to read both sides of this. 

[centurion]

I'm sorry to ruin your day, but the burden of proof here has been and always will be on you. I am stating that there is a self-evident law which dictates the course of an objective universe.  This law requires a Prime Mover to act as the ruler by which we measure reality, and is necessary for morality to exist.  You deny that God exists, and for an atheist the concept of natural law would therefore be ludicrous.  In a reality in which there are no consequences beyond the possibility of some jail time and eventual death (and no afterlife) I should think that at least a few of them would have the courage of their convictions and have some fun before the big ol' void comes to take them away.  I'm also pretty sure that if I hit them with a baseball bat for no reason they would get upset.  I'm also sure that the irony would totally escape them.  So please, defend your argument.  

 

All I am hearing here is an implicit concession that you condone anything so long as you think you can get away with it.

[4588686]

I'm sorry to ruin your day, but the burden of proof here has been and always will be on you. I am stating that there is a self-evident law which dictates the course of an objective universe.  This law requires a Prime Mover to act as the ruler by which we measure reality, and is necessary for morality to exist.  You deny that God exists, and for an atheist the concept of natural law would therefore be ludicrous.  In a reality in which there are no consequences beyond the possibility of some jail time and eventual death (and no afterlife) I should think that at least a few of them would have the courage of their convictions and have some fun before the big ol' void comes to take them away.  I'm also pretty sure that if I hit them with a baseball bat for no reason they would get upset.  I'm also sure that the irony would totally escape them.  So please, defend your argument.  

 

All I am hearing here is an implicit concession that you condone anything so long as you think you can get away with it.

 

 

I have a burden of proof to show that something doesn't exist?  Please, tell me more about me needing to become informed about the basics of 'western' logic.  

 

You don't need any sort of prime mover for a social set of morals to exist.  It's a social fact that systems of morality exist.  It's a social fact that Catholic moral systems exist.  That's not disputed.  what you're trying to argue is that God is the source of this morality and that it owes it's existence to some sort of transcendent necessity rather than being merely a human social construct.  It is obviously true that such a transcendent moral system depends on God for its existence.  But I've never disputed that (hey!  truth values of conditional statements!  western logic!).  You're the one claiming that such a set of laws actually does exist.  And that you've provided no substantive intellectual support for.  Other than some kind of weird and sad ramblings.  But I'd love to hear more about your esoteric 'western' logic which puts the burden of proof on me to show that your affirmative claim that something exists is false.  I'm only acquainted with heathenish abortion loving post-modern golly darn commie logic where it's generally considered weird to insist that your intellectual opponent prove a negative.  

Edited June 1, 2013 by Hasan

[arfink]

Well, I can see my humble thread here has gone in some unusual directions since I posted my first little query.

 

Hasan, I do like your questions about natural law. I am also pretty ticked there are people who refuse to defend or explain it properly.

 

I can't really provide an exhaustive proof of natural law all in one sitting though, I'm just not that good of a philosopher. But I would like to say that the best explanations I have come across for the natural law comes from John Paul II's phenomenology, which is also integral to his ideas behind the Theology of the Body. His work is kinda spread all over several of his books though, so it's difficult to synthesize. Apparently popes weren't in the habit of writing big books, and that was the reason he gave for breaking TOB up in particular over hundreds of lectures.

 

I'll have to see about some good sources so I can properly satisfy your inquiry. Hopefully I don't forget. :hehe: I tend to do that.

[arfink]

One other thing I should add, the natural law has been acknowledged by sources other than Christians. For example, after WWII the various Nazis who were captured were tried on the basis of Natural Law, since in almost all instances they had not actually broken any civil laws. Nowadays I suppose people would simply say they were following principles of humanism, but really, humanism is already very close to the concepts of natural law. Both humanism and the natural law are based on the idea that there is something special about humans, and that we can know a lot about how we ought to act simply because of the fact that we are human.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

[centurion]

I have a burden of proof to show that something doesn't exist?  Please, tell me more about me needing to become informed about the basics of 'western' logic.  

 

You don't need any sort of prime mover for a social set of morals to exist.  It's a social fact that systems of morality exist.  It's a social fact that Catholic moral systems exist.  That's not disputed.  what you're trying to argue is that God is the source of this morality and that it owes it's existence to some sort of transcendent necessity rather than being merely a human social construct.  It is obviously true that such a transcendent moral system depends on God for its existence.  But I've never disputed that (hey!  truth values of conditional statements!  western logic!).  You're the one claiming that such a set of laws actually does exist.  And that you've provided no substantive intellectual support for.  Other than some kind of weird and sad ramblings.  But I'd love to hear more about your esoteric 'western' logic which puts the burden of proof on me to show that your affirmative claim that something exists is false.  I'm only acquainted with heathenish abortion loving post-modern golly darn commie logic where it's generally considered weird to insist that your intellectual opponent prove a negative. 

And if natural law does not exist then any number of "social facts" are actually meaningless.  They would be arbitrary and, in effect, "horsepoo."  But please keep mocking me.  I can absolutely feel the love here on this forum.  I might have even been interested in having a real debate with you from the very beginning if your first couple of posts hadn't immediately equated my position with animal excrement and my own intelligence with the same.  I would argue that his makes you at the very least a partial instigator in this debate, but since you're obviously not going to offer up anything but scorn:

 

Natural law is intrinsically tied to human behavior, to the relationship between man and reality, and to the objectivity of the universe.  Aristotle and Roman law both recognized natural law as a rational set of behaviors established by nature for humanity, and this would at least appear to be self-evident.  Although there are often vast cultural differences between the various peoples of the world, there are a few common denominators as well.  Murder, rape, assault, etc. are all frowned on within the context of each individual society, and laws are established or were established by previous generations in order to block and punish these behaviors.  In fact, even the earliest human records deal with this issue of justice and man's moral behavior.  The early concept of natural law as it was proposed by Aristotle equates natural law closely to animal behavior, but this explanation is probably not enough to fully understand our situation and place in reality.  After all, humanity would seem to enjoy several fundamental advantages which the rest of the animal kingdom does not.  Our capacity for sentient thought automatically makes us, at the very least, the dominant animal on the planet, but it also speaks to something more.  In the modern academic world this situation is often ascribed to natural selection, genetic predisposition, cultural engineering, etc.  However, these explanations still do not answer the question of key differences which separate humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom.  A wild animal takes what it wants when it wants.  Even the higher animal species (ex. dolphins and chimpanzees) can and do display shockingly violent behavior towards other species and other members of the same species both within and without their individual social groups.  There may be positive or negative consequences for these actions, but even in these cases the animals are clearly acting within the structure of instinct.  This is not the case with humans.  We are capable of acting with great violence towards each other and of committing horrible atrocities, but our capacity for sentient thought also gives us the ability to consider these actions within a context which seems completely foreign to any of the animal species.  This is not in-and-of-itself proof of natural law, but it is compelling evidence that there is something more overarching than mere genetic predisposition acting on humanity.  If humanity is merely responding to instinct then it is also clear that humanity is more than capable of surpassing this instinct.  The very way in which we perceive the world around us allows us to--without too much trouble--act in any way we desire, and yet we often do not (at least, I am giving the people reading this the benefit of the doubt).  Again, there may be negative or positive consequences for these actions, but these decisions do not need to conform to any instinctual prerogatives.  This suggests that humanity is functioning as a being which in many ways transcends the animal kingdom.

 

St. Thomas Aquinas described natural law as our participation in the eternal law, that is, God's law, and this is also a fundamental aspect of natural law.  The concept of a Prime Mover is necessary for understanding and defining the world around us.  [Here we come to the real sticking point of the argument since you deny the existence of God, but for the sake of others I will continue.]  We are also clearly able to reach and understand certain concepts--axioms--which we accept as real in-and-of-themselves.  These are both unprovable and absolutely necessary to our understanding of math and logic.  The laws of thought would be chief among these for the purposes of this discussion.  These are traditionally attributed to Aristotle, and they have a long history in shaping human society and thought (ex. a particularly poignant quote concerning these laws is attributed to Avicenna for anyone who wants to look it up).  The nature and exact number of these laws has been debated over the centuries, but the basic principles have largely remained the same.  However, these axioms must also be given their definition by something beyond ourselves since without a Prime Mover to act as a ruler by which reality is measured the axioms themselves loose any meaning except that which we give them a priori.  We can still say that they are true in-and-of-themselves, but the very fact that they are true in-and-of-themselves stands as compelling evidence for the existence of a Prime Mover.  Humans discover laws.  We do not invent them.  This Prime Mover, as the Creator of reality, has established definition which we are capable of knowing a priori and a posteriori and allows us to understand reality around us.  This means that these laws would not only apply to material but also to the metaphysical as well.  Morality clearly falls within the metaphysical.  Our capacity to comprehend good and evil must be based on something more than simple genetic predisposition if we are to ascribe it any meaning.  It is true that if I murder someone I make myself a criminal under the civil laws of this country, but so what?  A nation is fully capable of making any law it desires (ex. there are way to many good examples of this), and ultimately, if there is no way to assign morality to an action then we give up the authority to judge that action.  I may still be punished under a set of civil laws, but this punishment would be arbitrary.  Since the absence of a Prime Mover would also dictate the absence of any afterlife I could also rest assured that death would eventually and effectively end any punishment I could possible face.  

[centurion]

@ Arfink:  This is an interesting speech which was delivered by the pope emeritus.

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/papal-address-at-university-of-regensburg

Among other things it addresses the value and importance of theology in modern academia, but I believe it is also applicable to this discussion.  It is an enjoyable and thought provoking read if you haven't already read it.

Edited June 1, 2013 by centurion