Originally posted by no1marauder [b]Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.
Interesting. So ...[text shortened]... least we'd still have Natural Law - sort of fuzzy rules of thumb.
Good topic lucifershammer.[/b]No one said any such thing. Have a nice converstaion with Lucifershammer since you both insist on being idiots.
Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value.
Originally posted by no1marauder FROM THE OTHER THREAD:
Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value.
Originally posted by no1marauder [b]Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value. Call it "evolution" if you will.
Interesting. So ...[text shortened]... least we'd still have Natural Law - sort of fuzzy rules of thumb.
Good topic lucifershammer.[/b]Of course Natural law evolved. Mankind didn't start out with a ready made language or for that matter any knowlege of scarce resources and the need to co-operate for the survival of the group. Over time it became apparent. And it's not entirely the same depending on tribal customs that also evolved.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Originally posted by no1marauder [b/]An explanation for behavior and a rationale for why certain behavior can be punished.
On the contrary, as I have shown, it shows why certain behaviour should not be punished.
We punish murder and theft because they violate the basic fundamental rights we possess which are protected by th ...[text shortened]... human beings), and NL is based on the fundamental rights, then it will be a universal law.
LH
You are hung up on "good" and "evil" and can't get those concepts out of your theist "mind". We don't punish behavior because it's "evil"; we punish it because it violates people's rights and thus should be discouraged. Simple concepts, but something Christians can't wrap their heads around.
Originally posted by frogstomp Of course Natural law evolved. Mankind didn't start out with a ready made language or for that matter any knowlege of scarce resources and the need to co-operate for the survival of the group. Over time it became apparent. And it's not entirely the same depending on tribal customs that also evolved.
Originally posted by frogstomp Of course Natural law evolved. Mankind didn't start out with a ready made language or for that matter any knowlege of scarce resources and the need to co-operate for the survival of the group. Over time it became apparent. And it's not entirely the same depending on tribal customs that also evolved.
So you say - but you a merely asserting. You have not defended PNL - only restated the theory.
P.S. Do you support Probabilistic Natural Law or do you contradict yourself by claiming it is a universal code?
Originally posted by lucifershammer "IN THE OTHER THREAD" you said:
[b]Fundamental rights, Natural Law theory isn't reliant on such concepts. It merely states that as social animals we have a built in moral code based on empathy, that certain acts violate this code and such acts can be punished because they are "wrong" in the sense that they infringe the dignity of others. ...[text shortened]... Since your moral code is "built in", it must be universal and, hence, admit of no exceptions.[/b]
It is and there are no exceptions; everyone has the same Natural Law engrained into their being.
Originally posted by no1marauder It is and there are no exceptions; everyone has the same Natural Law engrained into their being.
Then, as I said elsewhere, it exists independent of and (ontologically) prior to our social interactions. Or, in simpler terms, that even a human being raised in total isolation from other human beings would have a natural inclination to NL.
Originally posted by no1marauder FROM THE OTHER THREAD:
Human beings have become the dominant species on the planet due to intraspecies cooperation and empathy; it is unsurprising that our basic moral codes would strongly reflect that characteristic of our nature which has the most survival value.
Cart = In back.
Horse = In front.
Get it?
So, what you call "Natural Law" is nothing but the biological theory of natural rights:
Originally posted by no1marauder You are hung up on "good" and "evil" and can't get those concepts out of your theist "mind". We don't punish behavior because it's "evil"; we punish it because it violates people's rights and thus should be discouraged. Simple concepts, but something Christians can't wrap their heads around.
First of all, are you approaching NL as an ethical theory or as a theory of jurisprudence? If I'm talking about NL as a theory of how men should act or lead their lives and you're talking about NL as a theory of how society should formulate laws, then we're talking about different things here.
Second, as I mentioned in my original argument against PNL, only "legal" and "illegal" have any meaning. You have illustrated my point.
Originally posted by lucifershammer First of all, are you approaching NL as an ethical theory or as a theory of jurisprudence? If I'm talking about NL as a theory of how men should act or lead their lives and you're talking about NL as a theory of how society should formulate laws, then we're talking about different things here.
Second, as I mentioned in my original argument against PNL, only "legal" and "illegal" have any meaning. You have illustrated my point.
You're utterly hopeless. I'm talking about what should be the basis of law, true, but there is no dichtomy between saying that the law should be based on respect for our Natural Law fundamental rights and saying that they exist. Where would you get the idea that law should be based on anything but??
Natural Law Theory
18 Aug '05 22:08
Back to Top