Sunday, March 23, 2008

The Devil's Advocate and Natural Law

Civis has a few nagging issues with traditional Natural Law. First, a gripe: most of the popular literature about Natural Law boils down to what the author thinks just has to be right. That's no help.

My biggest problem is the assertion that you can't have natural law without God. I have no problem with God, but people put forth the "natural law" as a basis for regulating society that is independent of theological strings. It seems to me that either Natural Law as a non-relgions moral basis for regulating society, or God as the foundation of Natural Law has to go. Right?

Second, can you develop moral norms from the natural law? I'm not entirely clear on that. If I want to know whether I would without food and water from my grandfather who is PVS, will the Natural law tell me? If not, what is the purpose of Natural Law.

Bottom line here: I don't see how Natural Law can be a way for Americans to agree on the best way to regulate society.

V.R.,
The Devil's Advocate

15 comments:

Rodak said...

Yes, you have understood the basic issue.

Civis said...

Shucks. Thanks.

Ryan Hallford said...

From a theological perspective natural law should not need any reference to God in its application. One may ultimately believe that God is the metaphysical cause that accounts for the moral law written into the very nature of human experience and consciousness. But even this assertion goes beyond the light of practical reason that natural law employs to discern and act according to the intrinsic goods of human existence.

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know truth--in a word, to know himself--so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves” -Pope John Paul II

First off, the Christian can reason from a theological standpoint that God who orders the cosmos and reveals himself through scripture and the incarnation does not contradict himself. The book of nature (known through science and reason) and the book of revelation (known through scripture and divine revelation) have a common author, namely God. When discussing this, Aquinas stated the maxim that truth cannot contradict truth. Whatever is shown to be true through science and reason and whatever is shown to be truth through revelation cannot contradict each other, and if they do this shows some defect in mans understanding of either divine revelation or scripture. So from the standpoint of the Christian, I don’t think there ought to be a huge problem that there might be a moral code embedded in human experience and consciousness that does not have to explicitly credit God. Meaning the reasonability of natural law has to be able to be understood a part from religious tradition or inserting scripture to support an interpretation.

Natural law has not historically been only a Christian tradition. If anything, the Christians stole it with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. Surely, Aristotle did not reference God as the foundation for natural law.

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.”

“It is not a written law, but innate…which we are not taught, but for which we are made; in which we are not instructed, but which we are imbued.”
-Cicero

Even Isadore of Seville (636 AD) believed natural law was specifically a human exercise in practical reason that determines what good man ought to do.

I think the case for natural law is so fundamental that many people overlook it. There is something inherently moral about the way humans interact in the world. Every expression of morality points to a moral dimension deeper then the expressed law. If there were no reason and discernable end for reason to know, there would be no naturally arising discussion of justice, freedom, and morality. But yet these issues universally arise in every culture. The fact that people try to put forth intellectual formulations of morality shows that they are trying to access of moral law that acts in accordance with what they believe man’s nature is. Fundamental evidence of natural law is that people implicitly act as if natural law is present and assume it in conversation. Once somebody tries to implore justice for something they deem unjust they are referencing a natural law context. We don’t need to tell our children about justice for them to feel that they have been cheated. Our use of natural law is often so implicit and unconscious that many people don’t realize that they are arguing for an intrinsic good of existence. Take any moral system that exist, and I think you’ll see assumed goods that man cannot empirically justify except to say that he felt this way when this happened. Even Kant’s Kingdom of Ends presuppose a natural law context. Of course, people don’t want to be merely used as a means to another end. Natural rights theory references inalienable rights and all it can really say about them is that they ought to be inalienable.

Natural law must be co-natural to human consciousness because we cannot empirically observe our own dignity or the dignity of others. We can only observe how we feel when certain things are done to us or others. But observing a certain response in ourselves already points to something that accompanies our knowing, a type of co-natural knowledge, that accounts for a particular kind of moral experience. We feel cheated when treated unjustly! Why? Why do we experience evil as an atrocity. Why is guilt and shame universal? You may argue it is conditioned, but something has to already be present in the horizon of human consciousness for this type of thing to arise.

In my previous comment on natural law, I tried to show how it is both natural and a law. I’m not sure if I should repost it so that it may be submitted as evidence to be evaluated in this discussion.

I think the question becomes this: if we don’t develop moral norms from natural law, what do we develop them from?

I am not arguing that natural law is something that stands above any other moral theory but something that must lies at the foundation of all moral theories and should be used as a standard of judgment of other moral theories. Undoubtedly, this means that there will be debate over the exact nature of natural law and how do apply basic principals in concrete situations, but this is the case with any moral theory. Often the more circumstances that enter the equation the harder it is to discern to right thing to do. This is a part of the moral dilemma of being human. Because natural law is written into the very conscience of every person, every person has an obligation to try to discern and appropriate the good in their lives. If all people didn’t have this call there would be no justice, for no one would seek it. To think justice, freedom, and moral norms reasonable is already to think them good. One does not need to think abstractly to get to this point but practically.

To develop a moral system without reference to a natural law context is impossible because this cannot be done without referencing at least some basic and vague moral notions. We could, as Rodak seems to recommend, use the Constitution as the basis to regulate society, but the Constitution is not a moral document, but a secular document created by people. In other words the paradox becomes this: how are people suppose to use the Constitution to determine what amendments should be added and/or changed to the Constitution. This is circular and leads nowhere. People have to already have a moral context outside of the Constitution which that they bring to the Constitution. If people only relied on the Constitution for the just ordering of society, I doubt there would have been very many amendments because the Constitution does not instruct what actions are good or bad. The constitution is a product of man trying to discern what methods are good for ordering a just society.

For a natural law perspective that doesn’t assume God in its premise I recommend J. Budziszewski and Jacques Maritain, and if you are very committed I recommend Bernard Lonergan.

Bernard Lonergan takes more patience to follow because his major work is “Insight” which consists in over 800 pages. However, I recommending reading one of the several commentaries that are available. Bernard Lonergan had a triple PhD in Philosophy, Theology, and Physics. I find Bernard Lonergan definitive in the matter of constructing an ethical system without referencing God because he begins with the very process of knowing starting with undeniable experience and builds his philosophy from the ground up. In his phenomenological method, Lonergan constructs an epistemological foundation based on the structure of the empirical method and cognitional process of knowing on top of which he develops a metaphysics and ethical theory. All the while Lonergan never assumes the existence of God but constructs a philosophy that is still very much open to belief in God. Lonergan ties the ethical dimension to the very process of knowing. If you are trying to understand how natural law must be implicit in all knowing and therefore all ethical theories, I suggest this is where you look.

Civis said...

Ryan,

Okay, so you are in the camp of those that believe we can have natural law without reference to God? Not that this is the end of the story, but doesn’t Aquinas disagree? Are you familiar with the aguments in favor of the proposition that there can be no Natural Law without God?

I’m in the choir you are preaching to as far as faith and reason not being in conflictoor if they are there is either something wrong with your faith or something wrong with your reason. But that is not the problem I have with Natural Law.

“Natural law has not historically been only a Christian tradition. If anything, the Christians stole it with the philosophy of the Greeks and Romans. Surely, Aristotle did not reference God as the foundation for natural law.”

I’m not an expert here, but I think in actual fact you are not going to find much Natural Law in Aristotle Plato and Aristotle. The Greek philosophers’ writings might foreshadow natural law—kind of like the Declaration of Independence foreshadows the Constitution—but that’s about as far as it goes. They believed in a “higher law” but that’s about as far as it goes. If I’m wrong on this, by all means correct me, anyone who has better information.
As for the later Greeks and the Romans they made reference to God.

“Even Isadore of Seville (636 AD) believed natural law was specifically a human exercise in practical reason that determines what good man ought to do.”

If you have a reference for IOS on this, I’d like to look at it. But can it be done without reference to God? That is the question.

“I think the case for natural law is so fundamental that many people overlook it. There is something inherently moral about the way humans interact in the world. [et seq.]”

I agree with your observation. I don’t think there is anyone who really believes in relativism. I think we all believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong. But this does not make the case for Natural Law any more than it makes the case for utilitarianism, Kantianism, or the divine command theory. For me the question is, “What is the correct way to discern right from wrong?”

“Fundamental evidence of natural law is that people implicitly act as if natural law is present and assume it in conversation. Once somebody tries to implore justice for something they deem unjust they are referencing a natural law context. [et seq.]”

How is that? They assume a moral code. I will agree with you there. But where do you get that that the moral law they assume is the Natural Law?

“Natural law must be co-natural to human consciousness because we cannot empirically observe our own dignity or the dignity of others.”

Come again?

“We can only observe how we feel when certain things are done to us or others. But observing a certain response in ourselves already points to something that accompanies our knowing, a type of co-natural knowledge, that accounts for a particular kind of moral experience.”

Now you are making sense to me. I feel that when my wife limits me to a 12-pack of beer a week, I do not like that. Now I know what to do: tell her she is violating the Natural Law and is being immoral. I always thought that just wasn’t right. I’m kidding of course. But maybe you can refine your point. I mean, there are a lot of things that people do that I don’t like, but how do I know it’s not me who has the problem? When my parents grounded me for sneaking out in the middle of the night to drink beer and cruise around with my friends, I had a great deal of indignation at the constraint they put on me (I thought it was an atrocity and I felt no shame), but they were doing the right thing. I’m sure I am taking you out of context here, but if so, how would you refine what you have said.

“In my previous comment on natural law, I tried to show how it is both natural and a law. I’m not sure if I should repost it so that it may be submitted as evidence to be evaluated in this discussion.”

That is not my problem/question. My problem/question is a) Can we have Natural Law without God and if not, how does it function as a moral law which we can all agree on and make laws from? b) can we draw moral norms from the Natural Law?

“I think the question becomes this: if we don’t develop moral norms from natural law, what do we develop them from?”

Utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantianism, divine command, Rawl’s “Theory of Justice”, majority opinion, etc.

“I am not arguing that natural law is something that stands above any other moral theory but something that must lies at the foundation of all moral theories and should be used as a standard of judgment of other moral theories.”

Meaning then that we cannot get moral norms from Natural Law? If so, that’s fine; maybe that is all that it is supposed to do, I’m just trying to figure that out. If this is the case, I think there are people who are arguning for Natural Law to do things it’s not designed to do.

“Undoubtedly, this means that there will be debate over the exact nature of natural law and how do apply basic principals in concrete situations, but this is the case with any moral theory.”

Wait. Is it a moral theory or something that stands above (or perhaps underlies) moral theory?

“Often the more circumstances that enter the equation the harder it is to discern to right thing to do. This is a part of the moral dilemma of being human.”

And I’m wondering if it offers any answers.

“To develop a moral system without reference to a natural law context is impossible because this cannot be done without referencing at least some basic and vague moral notions.”

On what basis? Why does “basic and vague moral notion” have to be Natural Law?

“For a natural law perspective that doesn’t assume God in its premise I recommend J. Budziszewski and Jacques Maritain, and if you are very committed I recommend Bernard Lonergan.”

The first, is one of the writers for whom natural law boils down to “what just has to be right.” The second assumes God. I’ll look at the third.

Your comments are very thoughtful and we have a lot we can build from, but I still have the same questions. Maybe I need to read BL.

Ryan Hallford said...

“Okay, so you are in the camp of those that believe we can have natural law without reference to God? Not that this is the end of the story, but doesn’t Aquinas disagree? Are you familiar with the aguments in favor of the proposition that there can be no Natural Law without God?:
I am familiar with the arguments that there can be no Natural Law without God. I think there is a fine line here. I believe that there is meaning and truth in the universe that can be discerned by natural reason without referencing God, but I do think that God is the source of all meaning. Likewise I think we can have a natural law grounded the practical reason and human experience without going into a divine command theory. If somebody asked me why there is a natural law, I would have to say there are natural goods of human existence discernable by our practical reason. If somebody pushed the issue further and asked why again, they are asking a metaphysical question. I would have to reference my religious beliefs and say that is because God created the physical world and our human nature with a certain type of knowledge and desire that aides us in knowing certain goods of human existence apart from divine revelation.

So two issues are present: first- can we discern natural goods intrinsic to human existence? and secondly- if there is a natural law, can we understand why it’s there? The first issue deals with practical reason understanding what is good and acting accordingly. The second deals with a metaphysical question that goes beyond practical reason as such. So there may be someone that thinks that one doesn’t need to know God to know the natural law but still believes that God is the primarily cause of the natural law because God creates and orders the cosmos. From my understanding, this was along the lines of what Aquinas believed. In other words, man would not have to posit the source of natural law in God, to know and act according to natural law. The non-believers would have equal access to this moral law as the believer.

“I’m not an expert here, but I think in actual fact you are not going to find much Natural Law in Aristotle Plato and Aristotle. The Greek philosophers’ writings might foreshadow natural law—kind of like the Declaration of Independence foreshadows the Constitution—but that’s about as far as it goes. They believed in a “higher law” but that’s about as far as it goes. If I’m wrong on this, by all means correct me, anyone who has better information.”

For Plato/Socrates the good life dealt with knowledge of the forms; virtue is knowledge. Socrates saw evil action as a deficiency in knowledge of the Good. Aristotle thought the good life was the virtuous life and achieving happiness through rational contemplation. Aristotle did think the nature of a thing, its formal and final cause, was present in the thing itself. Beyond both of them, Thomas Aquinas put considerably more responsibility on the actual will of the moral agent than either philosopher. In a certain ways, Aquinas draws heavily from both of the but at the same time there is much innovation in his thought. You may be right that there is much more a foreshadowing of natural law than an explicit belief of it the way that shows up with Aquinas. Aquinas places discerning the good in the practical reason rather than the speculative, and he draws upon the intrinsic nature of things to understand mans naturally good tendencies such as existence/self preservation, nourishment, education of young, reproduction, social life (community), life of reason, to know the truth of God (freedom of religion), and a life of virtuous activity. I guess a question I have is if any of the items I just listed are in dispute as a natural good of human existence? How one applies these into concrete situation I think is in dispute, but think these goods somehow naturally manifest in every society.

I believe (and this is my own speculation) that Aquinas possibly placed emphasis on the practical reason discerning the natural goods (instead speculative reason) according to natural tendencies because of influence from Isidore of Seville. Isidore was published in the Italian scholar Gratian’s Decretum, a canon law text book circulating among scholastics in the Middle Ages. Isidore believed that natural law was practiced by everyone by virtue of instinct/ tendency.

“Natural law is the law common to all peoples, in that it is everywhere held by the instinct of nature, not by any enactment: as, for instance, the union of man and woman, the generation and rearing of children, the common possession of all things and the one liberty of all men, the acquisition of those things which are taken from air and sky and sea; also, the restitution of an article given in trust or money loaned, and the repelling of force with force. For this, or whatever is similar to this, is never considered unjust, but natural and equitable.” (Isidore of Seville, quoted by Gratian in the Decreta, dist. 1, c. Ius naturale)

If my hunches are correct (and I am not a scholar in this area), it would seem that the formal theory of natural law developed very much apart from the reference to God. I think you can see the importance of reason, good, nature, instincts/ tendency, practical reason, etc. all present in thinkers that precede Aquinas.

I will try to rely quite a bit on Maritain since he is brilliant and his work “Man and the State” is a necessary read.

Jacques Maritain says the emergence of the “moral sense” was natural and spontaneous which means that man has a natural implicit awareness of and a pre-philosophical knowledge of the natural law. Initially this would be first expressed in social patterns and customs, not in judgments of particular persons as good or bad. The content of this moral sense is 1) do good and avoid evil and 2) a knowledge of human nature in terms of natural inclinations.

These inclinations are discerned in an Aristotelian fashion. What tendencies does man have in common with every being? principle of existence/ self-preservation. What tendencies does man have with other animals? Fostering life through nourishment, reproduction, and education of young. What tendencies does man have by nature of his reason (as a rational animal)? Social life (community), life of reason, to know the truth of God (freedom of religion), and life of virtuous activity.

These tendencies can be seen, in some fashion, formulated in all societies. There may be disagreements, but what is good has a moral history and the history continues today. Knowledge of the natural law in its primordial expression occurs even in the social patterns of primitive communities and tribes.

Maritain claims that it is mostly by means of this moral feeling that people shape their moral lives. And these expressions of the moral notion are not expressed the same cross culturally.

“an immense amount of relativity and variability is to be found in the particular rules, customs, and standards in which among all peoples of the earth, human reason has expressed its knowledge of the most basic aspects of natural law.” –Jacques Maritain

Natural Law needs human experience and social reflection as content for the moral notion and practical reason. Because of this limitation, moral norms will not be universally known and agreed upon. Proper moral principals are not known all at once by come to light little by little as human nature evolves in history and human beings are confronted with new situation that call for new practical judgments.
Because the moral precepts within a society result from practical judgments there is always the possibility of error. This is why we need to reflect not only as individuals but as communities trying to understand intrinsic goods of human existence together. Because we must remain receptive and humble to formation, experience, and social reflection there is an evolution of moral consciousness. Through this evolution first principles are better applied to concrete situations. Certain social practices like slavery or human sacrifice can become more evidently known as evil by using practical reason to understand the intrinsic goodness of human existence and how these social evils act directly against these goods.

Maritain goes on further to claim that human rights are ultimately grounded in natural law. Without this they have no foundation other than nominal claims. Any time a person appeals to another on a moral issue this can only be done on grounds of some kind of moral standard. The moral language is embedded into our human experience.
“Fundamental evidence of natural law is that people implicitly act as if natural law is present and assume it in conversation. Once somebody tries to implore justice for something they deem unjust they are referencing a natural law context. [et seq.]”

“How is that? They assume a moral code. I will agree with you there. But where do you get that that the moral law they assume is the Natural Law?”

I am not saying they are assuming the formal theory of natural law, but that they have a natural sense of right and wrong that issues forth into a type of moral law that acts as a standard by which to judge morality.

“Natural law must be co-natural to human consciousness because we cannot empirically observe our own dignity or the dignity of others.”
“Come again?”

I was trying to express: 1) that natural law is embedded into our human consciousness which expresses a moral notion and sense of right and wrong. 2) the dignity of the human person, namely the irreducible subjectivity, cannot be empirically observed through the senses as a mere object of consciousness, but must be experienced. Only through reflecting one our own through processes do we become aware of ourselves as subjects and, through a similar reflection, other people as subjects independent than ourselves. (the insight is that consciousness is bi-polar: a subject intending and object by which the subjectivity of the subject can only be understood through indirect reflection. I don’t know if you are familiar with phenomenology). 3) Knowledge of the natural law is similar to knowledge of ourselves and others as subjects. I takes more reflection than pure empirical observation to realize it because the moral notion is so intimately connected to our subjectivity.

“We can only observe how we feel when certain things are done to us or others. But observing a certain response in ourselves already points to something that accompanies our knowing, a type of co-natural knowledge, that accounts for a particular kind of moral experience.”

To get the moral norms of natural law requires applying natural reason to those goods of human existence. Which type of actions preserves the goods of human existence, education, reproduction, society, freedom of religion, etc.? Then we must continuously ask these questions in situations that arise and try our best to apply them appropriately. Constructing any moral theory is not going to be easy because it is not an exact science with an exact formula. Rather it is a person and a group of people trying to discern how to fulfill their human nature in the flux of everyday living.

As for whether it offers any answers, the answer is yes.
“Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking of women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as instruments of profit, and not free responsible persons: All these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honor due the Creator.” - Second Vatican Council Gaudium et Spes, 27

Rodak said...

I would have to reference my religious beliefs

Case closed.

Rodak said...

To get the moral norms of natural law requires applying natural reason to those goods of human existence.

Circular argument.

Civis said...

Okay, let's pretend that you are asked to speak to the U.S. House of Representatives on why a certain law should be drafted, a law outlawing X the basis of which is natural law. The person who requested your input informs you that there are two concers among his colleages:

1) How do we get Natural Law without God.

2) How do we know the natural law says that X should be outlawed.

He needs you to outline an argument for NL that makes no reference to God. You have five minutes of floor time to get your point accross.

What do you say?

Ryan Hallford said...

Rodak,

“I would have to reference my religious beliefs”

Case not closed (go read the context again). This statement was made into someone inquiring into the metaphysical cause behind the goods they naturally discern as intrinsic to human existence. Those goods are discern by practical reason where as metaphysical causes are known by speculative reason as it studies being as such and not particular being. The same problem exists in science. The scientific method cannot tell you ultimately why there is something rather than nothing. Scientists may through empirical observations and mathematical application state that empirical evidence in the universe points to the fact that the universe is expanding and it was once at a point of singularity that scientist call the big bang. If someone ask why the big bang occurred they really can’t tell you why because this is a metaphysical question about a natural event. Therefore, when somebody asks why we can discern natural goods intrinsic to human existence, this is a metaphysical question asked about a natural event. Since practical reason and science cannot ask this I am left open to personally use my theological understanding to fill the gap in knowledge.

“To get the moral norms of natural law requires applying natural reason to those goods of human existence.”

This is not a circular argument because but a definition of method. It would be circular is reason and good of human existence didn’t have practical definitions outside this statement. I have already explain previously how natural law is both natural and a law and I have reproduced it below. This is where you need to show if the argument is circular. Furthermore, I have produced a list of basic goods of human existence based on this method.

Natural Law is a law because it is the “ordination rationis” (the ordination of reason) which is to say the law is determined by practical reason which is open to a knowledge of the good to be done. The laws become determined by the practical reason’s conclusion about what is good. In order to establish what is good we must determine what is natural.

Natural Law is natural because man has a set of intrinsic tendencies or inclinations towards a set of goods that man desires in order to be fully human. In other words, these desires help man fulfill his nature as a human.

Ryan Hallford said...

Civis,

I say that I am not good enough to do it in five minutes. I don’t think I have been making reference to God. I think I would use a natural law argument and not call it natural law seeing how all people in some sense do value existence, education, nourishment, reproduction, community, freedom of religion, life of reason, life of virtuous activity. I would appeal to these natural goods based on their own understanding of these goods and try to use practical reason to show whether or not the proposed policy is really consistent with one of these basic goods. In fact, I believe it can been shown that all of our laws already acknowledges the realities of these goods. Furthermore natural law in itself doesn’t say X should be outlaw. At least not explicitly. Rather we recognize some good of human existence and try to reason whether a particular action is in conformity with that good. There is much more debate than some type of categorical imperative. If I was speaking I would not address natural law as such but the particular issue at hand and discuss it in terms of what the good the law is trying to protect and if the proposed law actually protects that good.

Even something like the death penalty enforces death of those individuals that propose a danger to society. Death penalty is usually only done in certain grave cases which shows that we don’t actually favor killing people for no reason but as a consequence to a grave offense done to another human life/ humans. If I was trying to see if the death penalty was in conformity to natural law I would ask if there were no other way to keep society safe from this individual without putting this individual to death, because death like war should only be a last resort because there are no other means that will bring about the desire good of protecting the community and the good of innocent life.

Whether or not natural law is possible with or without God is a metaphysical question that does not have to be posited or rejected in order to discern natural law. Before the scientist tries to discover a meaning in the universe, he doesn’t argue without whether or not his process of inquiring and finding meaning in the universe is only possible if God exist. Rather the scientist tries to discover what is present in reality. The universe happens to have some intelligibility great, maybe this means there is a God maybe it doesn’t but the process of Science in itself cannot answer this question either way. The metaphysical “why” questions go beyond practical reason. Asking how do we get natural law without God has a likeness to asking how we get science without God. We just do. The universe exist in such a way that people tend to favor existence, reproduction, nourishment, community, freedom or religion, etc. Why is that so? Well, maybe this is why religion naturally arose in every culture, to answer this why question.
The above was my indirect response to your question more formally, in the exact situation you propose, it would look more like this:

I.Admit inability to do an adequate job at the task.

II.Speak of how our society tends to naturally value these goods in question anyway and our laws protect them.

III.Explain that a law should be examined on the basis of whether or not it protects the good in question through argumentation of using practical reason.

IV.Go into the particular policy and good in question.
a.Good: life of individual and society
b.Policy: death penalty
c.Application: is the death penalty the only way/ best way to protect the goodness of society as a whole and the individual’s life who committed the crime, or are there other alternatives to insure the safety of both.

V.If the issue of God was raised, I would say it is a metaphysical question that natural law does not prove or disprove. Nor is it a question that must be answered to engage in a natural law perspective.

Rodak said...

What do you say?

I dunno. Not my argument.

Rodak said...

Ryan--
Everything that you say is fine, except that reality doesn't seem to bear any of it out. You, on the one hand, say that moral relativism is pervasive, has taken over public education, etc., and on the other hand say that natural law "just happens" because it is written on our hearts, so to speak.
I can't make those two claims coexist.

Ryan Hallford said...

To say that natural law just happens may be a little misleading. It requires social reflection and practical reason applied to some intrinsic human good. Because the human goods are universal, so is natural law. This would contradict moral relativism.

Rodak said...

It requires social reflection and practical reason applied to some intrinsic human good.

You left out the most important thing: rote learning.

Ryan Hallford said...

I think the learning has its role as well. The community is important for understanding natural goods intrinsic to human existence. The learning has a primary place in understanding these goods and thus the natural law, because of the natural goodness of community, the life of reason, and education. Learning from others and socially reflecting in a community has a primary place in the formation of ones conscience. We have a responsibility to properly inform our conscience by seeking truth to the best of our ability. Parents have a responsibility of teaching their young.