The Natural Moral Law .....

The universal Natural Moral Law is inscripted in our hearts and we can read it using human reason.

Now, what kind of requirements do we need to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? Are there any conditions to be met in order to be able to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? How do we prevent the possibility that we misread the Natural Moral Law ?

Which are these requirements and conditions or can anybody read and interprete the universal Natural Moral Law as it suits him or her ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Are there any conditions to be met in order to be able to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ?

Retards probably can't do it. I suspect dogmatic Catholics can't either.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The universal Natural Moral Law is inscripted in our hearts and we can read it using human reason.

Now, what kind of requirements do we need to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? Are there any conditions to be met in order to be able to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? How do we prevent the possibility that we misread the Natural Moral Law ?

...[text shortened]... ions or can anybody read and interprete the universal Natural Moral Law as it suits him or her ?

Only serious reactions, please.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The universal Natural Moral Law is inscripted in our hearts and we can read it using human reason.

Now, what kind of requirements do we need to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? Are there any conditions to be met in order to be able to read the Natural Moral Law correctly ? How do we prevent the possibility that we misread the Natural Moral Law ?

...[text shortened]... ions or can anybody read and interprete the universal Natural Moral Law as it suits him or her ?

Desires of the self keep one from correctly interpreting the "natural moral law". To read the "natural moral law" correctly, one must deny oneself and love Truth.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Desires of the self keep one from correctly interpreting the "natural moral law". To read the "natural moral law" correctly, one must deny oneself and love Truth.

Correct. Now, how can one obtain such an inner attitude of self-denial and love for Truth ?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Desires of the self keep one from correctly interpreting the "natural moral law". To read the "natural moral law" correctly, one must deny oneself and love Truth.

Why do desires of the self keep us from correctly interpreting natural moral law. Are not some desires programed into our very being?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Correct. Now, how can one obtain such an inner attitude of self-denial and love for Truth ?

There seem to be any number of ways. All the religions based on love and truth seem to have guidance in this area (some more detailed than others). Outside of religion, a sincere desire to understand and mature seem to be able to get one there.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why do desires of the self keep us from correctly interpreting natural moral law. Are not some desires programed into our very being?

I can't think of any transgressions of man against man that aren't rooted in the self. The desire to protect and/or please the self do seem to be instinctual, but if one looks at the maturation process it appears that for the most part these should be outgrown. The ability of an individual to rationalize even the most henious behavior seems to lead to delusions that override a sense of morality.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Why do desires of the self keep us from correctly interpreting natural moral law.

They don't. Ivanhoe is wrong about that.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Only serious reactions, please.

I seriously don't believe that a dogmatic Catholic is generally well-equipped to make correct moral deliberations. In addition to mass amounts of empirical evidence in support of this finding, it can also be concluded analytically, as several dogmatic claims, which are taken as such a person's starting position in deliberation, are morally incorrect. And even if they weren't, one can rarely deliberate correctly from a closed-minded position. It's practically an oxymoron.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I seriously don't believe that a dogmatic Catholic is generally well-equipped to make correct moral deliberations. In addition to mass amounts of empirical evidence in support of this finding, it can also be concluded analytically, as several dogmatic claims, which are taken as such a person's starting position in deliberation, are morally incorrect ...[text shortened]... an rarely deliberate correctly from a closed-minded position. It's practically an oxymoron.

For instance, start an dabate about the status of mankind where Catholics believe we are born into sin.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I seriously don't believe that a dogmatic Catholic is generally well-equipped to make correct moral deliberations. In addition to mass amounts of empirical evidence in support of this finding, it can also be concluded analytically, as several dogmatic claims, which are taken as such a person's starting position in deliberation, are morally incorrect ...[text shortened]... an rarely deliberate correctly from a closed-minded position. It's practically an oxymoron.

DrS: "In addition to mass amounts of empirical evidence in support of this finding .... "

What kind of evidence did you have in mind ?

DrS: "it can also be concluded analytically, as several dogmatic claims, which are taken as such a person's starting position in deliberation, are morally incorrect."

Can you elaborate on that in the light of the subject of this thread ? What are those dogmatic claims which makes a "dogmatic Catholic" ill equipped to make "moral deliberations" ?

DrS: "And even if they weren't, one can rarely deliberate correctly from a closed-minded position."

What is your description of a "closed-minded position" in the context of reading the universal Natural Moral Law ? What constitutes this "closed-minded position"

Ivanhoe, seems you wanted to have a discussion about Natural Moral Law before you allowed yourself to get sidetracked. Please continue.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Ivanhoe, seems you wanted to have a discussion about Natural Moral Law before you allowed yourself to get sidetracked. Please continue.

DrS: "In addition to mass amounts of empirical evidence in support of this finding .... "

What kind of evidence did you have in mind ?


DrS: "it can also be concluded analytically, as several dogmatic claims, which are taken as such a person's starting position in deliberation, are morally incorrect."

Can you elaborate on that in the light of the subject of this thread ? What are those dogmatic claims which makes a "dogmatic Catholic" ill equipped to make "moral deliberations" ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


It would be interesting if Dr.Scribbles would answer the above questions. These questions are perfectly in line with the issues I wanted to investigate in this thread.

I expect that His answers will shine a light on the difference there is between reading, interpreting, the natural moral law on one hand and obeying the law on the other.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
What are those dogmatic claims which makes a "dogmatic Catholic" ill equipped to make "moral deliberations" ?

There are any number of them. Where would you like to start?

How about the Church's position on divorce, for example. The church holds that it is morally correct and preferable for a couple to endure a marriage of mutual suffering until death parts them rather than divorce and pursue more promising avenues of happiness and fulfillment.

Or perhaps we could start with the Church's position on homosexuality, holding that it is morally correct to not acknowledge the full personhood of homosexuals, that it is morally correct for them to refrain for all of life from acting upon their natural sexual inclinations.

Or there's always the old favorite: the Church's mysogyny. It holds that it is morally correct to decline women employment in various roles simply in virtue of their gender. It holds that it is morally correct to force a woman to bear a child after she has been forcibly impregnated against her will.

Or we could begin with the Church's stance on euthanasia, holding that it is morally correct to prevent a person's wishes to end a terminal illness of extreme suffering from being carried out.

Or how about the Church's racism, teaching that some people are "God's chosen" merely in virtue of their race.

Given all of these morally incorrect premises that a dogmatic Catholic would adhere to, and given that one cannot deliberate soundly from incorrect premises, it should be perfectly obvious that Catholic dogma seriously cripples a person's capacity for correct moral deliberation. The empirical evidence consists in the fact that dogmatic Catholics actually do think that all of the above are morally correct positions (and act and impose their beliefs accordingly), when in fact all of the above are morally reprehensible.