Originally posted by ivanhoe 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"
One who believes in the truth of some moral premise without sufficient justification, and who would persist in that belief in the face of any and all new evidence.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles 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 per ...[text shortened]... their beliefs accordingly), when in fact all of the above are morally reprehensible.
You are presenting your objections to some of the in your view Roman-Catholic interpretations (some of them are merely your misrepresentations) of the Natural Moral Law. You do not present the reasons why Orthodox Roman-Catholics, in your view, are not able to interprete the law.
What your stating boils down to: I do not agree with them and that is why they are not fit or able to interprete the Natural Moral Law.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles One who believes in the truth of some moral premise without sufficient justification, and who would persist in that belief in the face of any and all new evidence.
Thank God, Roman-Catholics do not belong to the category of people you just described.
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 ?
I fundamentally disagree with your opening statement. Not only is the nature of morals a human agenda and as such far from universal, but I don't believe there is any natural moral law as absolute enough an entity to demand capital letters, as if it is some sort of axiom of life.
Consequently I have no idea to what you refer when you ask the four questions which follow.
Originally posted by Starrman I fundamentally disagree with your opening statement. Not only is the nature of morals a human agenda and as such far from universal, but I don't believe there is any natural moral law as absolute enough an entity to demand capital letters, as if it is some sort of axiom of life.
Consequently I have no idea to what you refer when you ask the four questions which follow.
A premise in this thread is of course that the Natural Moral Law is universal. Whether morality is universal or relative is an issue being debated in a different thread.
Originally posted by ivanhoe A premise in this thread is of course that the Natural Moral Law is universal. Whether morality is universal or relative is an issue being debated in a different thread.
Sure, my point is, if you allude to what you mean by a universal Natural Moral Law than I might be able to offer my opinion on your questions.
Originally posted by ivanhoe A premise in this thread is of course that the Natural Moral Law is universal. Whether morality is universal or relative is an issue being debated in a different thread.
The justification for that premise can be challenged.
If I was to start a thread stating premises x,y,z and then use these premises to derive other conclusions...I would expect you to challenge those premises
Originally posted by Starrman Sure, my point is, if you allude to what you mean by a universal Natural Moral Law than I might be able to offer my opinion on your questions.
"The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie ......
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin ......
This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature ... "
Originally posted by Agerg The justification for that premise can be challenged.
If I was to start a thread stating premises x,y,z and then use these premises to derive other conclusions...I would expect you to challenge those premises
Sure, but that is a discussion going on in another thread.
Originally posted by ivanhoe http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm#I
"The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie ......
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin ...[text shortened]... rrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature ... "
Right, gotcha. Unfortunately that doesn't help me since I don't believe that any of that is correct. Since you're not after a debate on this topic's existence in the world, but rather the implications of it if it were in existence, I'll decline.
02 Jan '07 03:071 edit
The Natural Moral Law .....
Back to Top