Natural Law

Kings Inns or bust

I've asked a similar question over in the Christianity forum but to frame it slightly differently here. Who are the theist, non-secular natural law theorists? I've read some of Finnis' work and find him to border on the ridiculous and while I'm somewhat of a fan of secular natural law I remain completely unconvinced that any of it needs religion or any form of higher power beyond human reason.

Where should I be looking to challenge that assertion?

Grolschevik

Thomas Aquinas was probably one of the first to systematically articulate a theory of natural law in the Christian tradition. Can't remember if Augustine had anything to say about it, but Aquinas is the big and early one. Always found it really tedious stuff, but I can scan some secondary sources if you're interested.

Edit: re-read. Aquinas probably not suitable for a critique of natural law!

Kings Inns or bust

Grolschevik wrote: »

Thomas Aquinas was probably one of the first to systematically articulate a theory of natural law in the Christian tradition. Can't remember if Augustine had anything to say about it, but Aquinas is the big and early one. Always found it really tedious stuff, but I can scan some secondary sources if you're interested.

Edit: re-read. Aquinas probably not suitable for a critique of natural law!

Aquinas was also on the syllabus; extremely interesting but I'm looking for a rebuttal of people like Hitchens and Dawkins really. Although if I can pick up some marks on an inevitable Juris retake I'd be most obliged!

Thanks for taking the time to respond!

Please don't go to any great trouble on my behalf, half remembered notes etc are more than I deserve in essentially asking you to do my homework for me.

Grolschevik

What would be an example of the sort of question you might have to answer?

Sometimes a rebuttal of an argument that is based on metaphysical premises radically inconsistent with your own has to just state that. "I disagree with the fundamental bases of your argument due to (the widely accepted idea of) the radically indeterminate status of the nature of moral evaluation."

One of my favourite vaguely relevant quotes is from Ted Honderich: "[Political philosophy (substitute what you will)] ... is advocacy, in a way related to the work of a decent barrister. Political philosophers are more like barristers than judges, even if barristers more or less convinced of the rightness of their cases..."

I suspect that's not what you're looking for, however, though it's one of the main reasons I stay out of politics/philosophy/religion threads. Wrestling with a pig, and all that...

Never studied jurisprudence, but more of this sort of thing in this forum, I say!

Speedwell

C. S. Lewis has much to say about this exact subject in his short book The Abolition of Man, the full text of which can be found conveniently here: https://archive.org/stream/TheAbolitionOfMan_229/C.s.Lewis-TheAbolitionOfMan_djvu.txt

You will also want to look among the Libertarians ("capital L" Libertarians, that is, people who identify as members of the Libertarian movement in the US) like Rothbard for natural-law interpretations of liberty and rights, and in my experience the US most Libertarians are theists, as was I when I was in the US (both a Libertarian and a theist, I mean, and I don't call myself either one anymore). Atheist Libertarians are very much in the minority, and I am at best vaguely a Spinozist. You may want to check out Spinozism for ideas, though.

Kings Inns or bust

The questions posed are quite straightforward and wouldn't really be enlightening, I suppose I'm looking for something deeper which may or may not assist me should I need a retake. Eitherway I fascinated by legal philosophy not least for the way that one can discuss some fairly controversial views with a level of abstraction that doesn't descend into dogma.

I'll certainly endeavour to oblige with some of the more radical theories, I've a nod in the direction of that paper benefiting from my usual regimen of a half pissed cramming session the night before. Marx and Derrida anyone? :pac:

Speedwell

Marx, certainly. As an American raised by a father who was a refugee from the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, and a mother whose parents were immigrants from the Soviet Union, I was taught to think of Marx in the same breath as Satan, of course. Imagine my surprise when I befriended a radical Spaniard on the Internet who sent me the complete Capital, and I actually read the thing. I'm not ready to discuss Marx qua Marx yet, but I'll take a crack at the concepts if someone else brings them up... sometime somewhere if I get important enough to have a biographer, they might find my journey from Libertarian theism to socialist atheism fascinating.

I still find Derrida useful mainly as someone to point and laugh at, I'm slightly ashamed to say. The best I can muster when attempting to read Derrida is a raised eyebrow and a "you don't say" and a miserable wish I understood French.

Grolschevik

Speedwell wrote:

natural-law interpretations of liberty and rights

Broadly ultimately derived from Locke, I imagine.

Kings Inns or bust wrote:

Marx and Derrida anyone?

Do they cover them in jurisprudence?!

On Marx and the individual's relations to society, I'd recommend (primary) the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Oh, and (secondary but influential) Cohen's History, Labour and Freedom.

As a thought, you might pose a question in the philosophy forum.

Speedwell

Grolschevik wrote: »

Broadly ultimately derived from Locke, I imagine.

Largely. At the moment the movement is dominated by influences from the Austrian school of economics (Rothbard, again). I was a card-carrying Ludwig Von Mises Institute member for a few years, and subsequently, to make a very tedious story short, I grew up, developed a conscience, and decided that real reality was far more complex and subtle than the Libertarian approximation. In a nutshell I discovered that my whole worldview was not only naive but childishly so, and not only that, but was not doing me any favors emotionally. Given that Ayn Rand is a not-very-distant relative of my family's and that I'm approximately violet on the autism spectrum, you can imagine how easy it would be for me to have become an obnoxious and contemptuous idiot.

Not saying I didn't. :rolleyes:

I don't think this discussion is really the proper thing to take to the Philosophy forum; part of the problem is really that it's not the ivory tower where this thinking needs to take place, but where the rubber meets the road, that is, we need to take into account the fact that natural law and theism really don't go far enough to explain how things actually work. A good, rigorously scientific discussion of altruism as a survival mechanism of populations would be of great value here.

Kings Inns or bust

Grolschevik wrote: »

Broadly ultimately derived from Locke, I imagine.

Do they cover them in jurisprudence?!

As a thought, you might pose a question in the philosophy forum.

A certain lecturer, of unachieving but well endowed in the wallet department, students certainly does!

I might hang around with the lawyers and God bothers for a bit longer, but it's an excellent thought! :pac:

Grolschevik

Speedwell wrote: »

A good, rigorously scientific discussion of altruism as a survival mechanism of populations would be of great value here.

Not scientific (Dawkins-type stuff might be a starting point for that), but I read a book years ago called Passions Within Reason that was pretty good and not purely philosophical. Robert Frank, google tells me.

Another good one, from an ethical constructionist approach, is Mackie's Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong.

And one I've had on my shelves for years, but I've never actually read (though the contents page indicates it could be useful!) is TLS Sprigge's The Rational Foundation of Ethics.

'Spose we could go back to Hobbes, too, if we were so inclined.


Anyway; not sure this counts as legal discussion anymore, so apologies to the mods!

EDIT: missed a sidebar about Marx, so I added this above:

On Marx and the individual's relations to society, I'd recommend (primary) the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844. Oh, and (secondary but influential) Cohen's History, Labour and Freedom.

Speedwell

Grolschevik wrote: »

Anyway; not sure this counts as legal discussion anymore, so apologies to the mods!

Insofar as these concepts broadly underpin public policy, I think the topic is relevant. When we move off of the mark as regards that, I think we'll be outside the pale.

Grolschevik

Speedwell wrote: »

Insofar as these concepts broadly underpin public policy, I think the topic is relevant. When we move off of the mark as regards that, I think we'll be outside the pale.

Jib, cut, like!