Natural Law

ISAW

Poisonwood wrote:

>Kind of like "natural law"

One has to agree that this is special pleading.

What does "natural law" mean.

Lest people be confused

The point I am making here for a skeptic is to distinguish what you are talking about when you discuss "laws" of nature.

There are at least two ways of looking at this.

1. Are there "laws" to the universe e.g. the "laws" of physics. maybe these so called laws are only approximations dependent on our level of error in measurement.

2. The philosophy of natural law.

This relates to both legal and moral philosophy. I have posted several references already about moral philosophy and theology.

As regards the legal entity here are a few references:

ILT - Irish Law times?


O.Hanlon J, writing extra judicially in Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution, (1993), ILT 8 and The Judiciary and the Moral Law, (1993), ILT 129.

Duncan , Can Natural law be used in Constitutional interpretation? Doctrine and life, vol. 45, (1995), at p. 125, As quoted in Whyte , Natural Law and the Constitution, (1996), ILT 8 at p. 9.

O'Hanlon, The Judiciary and the Moral Law, (1993), ILT 129 at p. 130.

O'Hanlon, Natural rights and the Irish Constitution , (1993), ILT 8 at p. 10. Here the learned judge asks “(.Did the people really realise what they were voting about?) Is it compatible with the Natural Law?” This theory not only applies to referenda but also to any other law or judicial decision.

Per Henchy J, Precedent in the Irish Supreme Court , (1962) O' Hanlon J quoted with favour the above sentence on the same point in an earlier article, Natural Rights and the Irish Constitution, (1993) ILT 8 at p. 9.


According to Walsh J,[1974] “Articles 41, 42 and 43 emphatically reject the theory that there are no rights without laws, no rights contrary to the law and no rights anterior to the law. They indicate that justice is placed above the law and acknowledge that natural rights, or human rights, are not created by law but that the Constitution confirms their existence and gives them protection. The individual has natural and human rights over which the State has no authority…”

Humanae Vitae, (1968), in particular paras . 11 and 12 that state “The Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of natural law, as interpreted by her constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life...” and went on to say “We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seizing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle” As quoted in Murphy, Natural Law and the Irish Constitution, (1993), ILT 81 at p. 83.

Murphy, Democracy, Natural Law and the Irish Constitution, (1993), ILT 81 and Clarke, The Constitution and Natural Law: A Reply to Mr Justice O. Hanlon, (1993), ILT 177.

Murphy, Democracy, Natural Law and the Irish Constitution, (1993), ILT 81. According to Murphy “To claim in a democracy, that the law may not be ‘lawful' is a legal fiction of the highest order. It does not contribute in any way to constitutional jurisprudence.

The above are from the Cork online law review.

You can find them and more here: http://colr.ucc.ie/2003vii.html

****End references************


I didnt go into detail but you can see they refer to Supreme court judgements and papal encyclicals/canon law among other references.

I really dont want to go into the legal existance of natural law but it seems that people are replying to Eri and I notice some of his comment in part of those replies. Please ignore him and put him on your ignore list. If on the other hand you find that anywhere else he has anything to contribute which does not link directly to broadcasting holocaust denial do tell me about it and I will consider recognising him.

The point I am making here for a skeptic is to distinguish what you are talking about when you discuss "laws" of nature.

And remember even if a court decided that Pi = 3 that would not mean Pi=3. I happen to believe (although I am sceptical) there are some things which are true and no amount of people saying they are not true will make them cease to exist.

Now all this can lead to very heavy discussions on the nature of reality and on perception versus existance of things in the world which is within the philosophy of science but maybe not a major sceptical thread.

But that does NOT detract from the existance of natural law as an entity in constitutional, case and canon law as well as in history sociology and philosophy. Nor does it mean the holocaust did not happen although in this case there is literally LOADS of evidence.

I wont rehearse the arguments any more but if one can remember to distinguish the laws of nature from natural law maybe we can avoid the problems of regarding pseudo history i.e. an account of what happened in the past from pseudo science i.e. a description of how the world works.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

What does "natural law" mean.

Lest people be confused

The point I am making here for a skeptic is to distinguish what you are talking about when you discuss "laws" of nature.

There are at least two ways of looking at this.

1. Are there "laws" to the universe e.g. the "laws" of physics. maybe these so called laws are only approximations dependent on our level of error in measurement.

2. The philosophy of natural law.

This relates to both legal and moral philosophy. I have posted several references already about moral philosophy and theology.

Once again ISAW attempts to ignore their previous claims which were quite vehement and hopes no-one will notice. ISAW's original claim was that natural law exists. This is more than merely claiming to believe in its existence. In response to repeated calls to provide a demonstration of the existence claim we were provided with evidence that there are people and institutions that believe in natural law.

I didnt go into detail but you can see they refer to Supreme court judgements and papal encyclicals/canon law among other references.

Once again we are being given evidence that some people belive in natural law. So far we are still waiting for a demonstration of the existence claim.

I really dont want to go into the legal existance of natural law but it seems that people are replying to Eri and I notice some of his comment in part of those replies.

Notice the way ISAW adds the adjective 'legal' to 'existence' and hopes we don't notice.

Please ignore him and put him on your ignore list.

Having failed to get me banned, they now try to get me ignored.

If on the other hand you find that anywhere else he has anything to contribute which does not link directly to broadcasting holocaust denial do tell me about it and I will consider recognising him.

And what a privilege that would be!

The point I am making here for a skeptic is to distinguish what you are talking about when you discuss "laws" of nature.

Sudden change of topic from laws of nature to natural law.

And remember even if a court decided that Pi = 3 that would not mean Pi=3.

180 degree turn here. ISAW tried to argue that Nuremberg was based on natural law because Robert Jackson seemed to say something that resembled a natural law claim.

I happen to believe (although I am sceptical) there are some things which are true and no amount of people saying they are not true will make them cease to exist.

By the same token, no amount of saying that they are true will make them true. A set of sound arguments based on solid premises would be sufficient, but even that seems to be too much to ask.

Now all this can lead to very heavy discussions on the nature of reality and on perception versus existance of things in the world which is within the philosophy of science but maybe not a major sceptical thread.

Au contraire! Such questions are the very stuff of any philosophical discussion. Skepticism refers to two things: a.) a method of inquiry based on reserving judgement until all evidence and/or arguments are in, or, b.) An inclination which tends to doubt as a matter of habit.

But that does NOT detract from the existance of natural law as an entity in constitutional, case and canon law as well as in history sociology and philosophy.

Once agin, iondioctaing the existnece of a discourse of natural law is not he same thing as demonstrating the existence of natural law. The latter is ISAW's major claim.

Nor does it mean the holocaust did not happen although in this case there is literally LOADS of evidence.

Not that ISAW is familiar with this evidence and so is therefore in no position to make such judgements.

I wont rehearse the arguments any more but if one can remember to distinguish the laws of nature from natural law maybe we can avoid the problems of regarding pseudo history i.e. an account of what happened in the past from pseudo science i.e. a description of how the world works.

A morass of utter confusion. How is one to distinguish between laws of nature (a contentious claim in itself) from natural law if we don't know what they are? How can ISAW give such advice if they are not prepared to provide arguments to demonstrate the existence of either of these entities? What has either the laws of nature or natural law to do with the evidence or lack thereof for historical events?

Poisonwood

ISAW wrote:

Lest people be confused

Confused??? And you think that your post clarified something?

Sorry ISAW but that has to rate as the one of the most incoherent posts I've read. Perhaps you should be in the philosophy or religion forums?

ISAW

Poisonwood wrote:

Confused??? And you think that your post clarified something?

Sorry ISAW but that has to rate as the one of the most incoherent posts I've read. Perhaps you should be in the philosophy or religion forums?

I posted several legal references to the existance of a legal entity called Natural Law. this is recognised by the Supreme Court, Canon Law, and philosophy. I put these in because it seems there has been the suggestion that this concept does not exist in Law and I was just showing that it DOES! It is not an opinion that it may exist! It is a fundamental entity recognised in law and I have posted court DECISIONS (i.e. CASE LAW) texts, University links to people specialising in Natural Law, legal references and so on so I don't wish to go into it any further unless you are unclear about that.

AS a way of getting around holocaust denial as a skeptical subject, I suggested this be dealt differently to the "laws of nature" e.g the "laws" of physics. These are about describing how the world works.

I don't see what is so confusing about that.

Where the philosophy of science comes in is whether or not there are laws of physics or whether they are only approximations (much in the way Newtons laws are). This probably IS a debate for philosophy but I think skeptics should be aware of the principle involved i.e. so called "laws" of physics may not be laws. One however must note that while pseudo science doen not tend to develop change and become more accurate as time moves on science DOES tend to and brings in data from ever increasing and varied fields.

Another point I am suggesting is that one may be making a type error in catagorising pseudo history in the same set as pseudo science. the former is an account which is open to critique. The latter is is a set of rules or an interpretation of reality posing as science but not adhering to fundamentals of science e.g. evidenced based; using the scientific method; based on unsound theory; containing logical fallacy etc.

Do you understand my point now?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

And remember even if a court decided that Pi = 3 that would not mean Pi=3. I happen to believe (although I am sceptical) there are some things which are true and no amount of people saying they are not true will make them cease to exist.

I think you are getting the idea of a mathematical truth mixed up with the idea of a moral truth. Pi is 3.14... even if humans never existed. The idea that it is wrong to kill someone or to steal someones money etc is defined by us as a society and culture.

ISAW wrote:

But that does NOT detract from the existance of natural law as an entity in constitutional, case and canon law as well as in history sociology and philosophy.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "natural" law. Do you mean a natural moral law, like the laws defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

I think you are getting the idea of a mathematical truth mixed up with the idea of a moral truth. Pi is 3.14... even if humans never existed. The idea that it is wrong to kill someone or to steal someones money etc is defined by us as a society and culture.


I am not quite sure what you mean by "natural" law. Do you mean a natural moral law, like the laws defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

yes and yes. I am suggesting that we seperate the two and be aware of the distinction. It seems to me that in doing that we can avoid going to much into the holocaust denial stuff as skeptic subject.

I will take you up on one thing about the moral/legal side of it though. There are those who believe that right and wrong existed before any laws were written down. There are also those who believe that right and wrong is NOT socially negotiated. The idea of a UNIVERSAL moral law is the idea or natural law in a moral sense. The problem for skeptics here is this. We may have no problem with peoples' beliefs and only with claims based on them. But framing a law that says Pi=3 because it is a religious belief will not make Pi=3. It however will LEGALLY make it 3.

Now I (there are others who have in some of the legal cases i referenced) am making the same argument in a moral type as in the mathematicalk case. Some people say for example that slavery or killing gypsies is wrong and making a law that makes it acceptable does NOT make it right. But in doing this one is making an argument based on natural (moral) law.

We should keep the moral and physical laws seperate but it is possible that the two may come into conflict and people believe that the scientific law must be wrong. Creationism based on fundamentlalist Biblical accounts is one example. Other than pointing to the masses of scientific evidence is anything to be gained in spending an inordinate amount of time on that? Like wise holocaust denial. If somebody is going to believe no matter what evidence is presented to show the limited pool they draw from what can one do?
If cognitive conflict cannot be created when glaring errors are shown up then where can one go?

Elsewhere I suggest.

Obni

When people use the term "natural law" it is often used to express what they believe is God's law, but without using the G-word (e.g. Natural Law party).
At other times its intended use seems to be "what-I-personally-feel-is-fair-and-just law".
At the risk of crossing topics and incurring the wrath of Davros (wasn't that a Dr. Who episode "The Wrath of Davros"?), I would even venture to describe its use as "generally-accepted-as-just law".

Ultimately most appeals to natural law really are appeals to that which someone believes is held as right and wrong amongst the majority of those in the same society or community. All such laws are constructs of the society in which they exist and have no reality outside those societies.

Is the wrongness of murder a natural law? What if the person killed has themselves killed another or others? What if they are a traditional enemy attacking our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy threatening to attack our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy whose seemingly innocent activities would leave them in a stronger position from which to threaten to attack our homes? There is no "one" natural law.

That natural law in its role as common-sense law plays a indispensable role in guiding our behaviour cannot be disputed, but that it is anyway natural, and not an artificial system based on the values of the society in which the law is held to be just, is to separate man from nature.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

(wasn't that a Dr. Who episode "The Wrath of Davros"?), I would even venture to describe its use as "generally-accepted-as-just law".

Davros was the half man half dalek who CREATED them.

Ultimately most appeals to natural law really are appeals to that which someone believes is held as right and wrong amongst the majority of those in the same society or community. All such laws are constructs of the society in which they exist and have no reality outside those societies.

How is it than that whereever you go in history among completly DIFFERENT cultures that there are common laws e.g. killing people is wrong?

How ios it if society constructs values that they all happened to arrive (completly independently) with basically the same moral value system?

Is the wrongness of murder a natural law? What if the person killed has themselves killed another or others? What if they are a traditional enemy attacking our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy threatening to attack our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy whose seemingly innocent activities would leave them in a stronger position from which to threaten to attack our homes? There is no "one" natural law.

The idea of self defence is not murder nor execution or accidental death. You are picking out exceptions. I mean killing someong just because you feel like it? Why is it common to independent societies that this is seen as wrong?
That one thing IS common. And there are other things.

That natural law in its role as common-sense law plays a indispensable role in guiding our behaviour cannot be disputed, but that it is anyway natural, and not an artificial system based on the values of the society in which the law is held to be just, is to separate man from nature.

You see how is it slavery is wrong even when the majority want it or judges say it is? Is right what the powerful or the majority want? Clearly it is not. So where does the right derive from. By the way one does not have to believe in any God to accept the natural law.

Well to be fair The Supreme Court has revised its position and now refers to "constitutional and natural justice" but there is no doubting it accepts appeals to natural law as valid arguments though not necessarily binding.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

How is it than that whereever you go in history among completly DIFFERENT cultures that there are common laws e.g. killing people is wrong?
How ios it if society constructs values that they all happened to arrive (completly independently) with basically the same moral value system?
The idea of self defence is not murder nor execution or accidental death. You are picking out exceptions. I mean killing someong just because you feel like it? Why is it common to independent societies that this is seen as wrong?

Because certain behaviours by individuals within social groups, if unrestrained, lead to the destruction of the social fabric from which all members of the society derive benefits. It is because untrammeled murder may satisfy the whim of a single person at the expense of all others within that social group that it is not tolerated. As long as we can go about our everyday business without the constant threat of murder, we save the vast amounts of energy required for constant vigilance.
Consider how most people see crimes of passion as lesser forms of murder than murder during a robbery or a random killing. The victim is no less dead, but the key is that the victim was always going to be the person chosen. Contrast that with modern society's worst nightmare the serial-killer, where any one of us could be the victim. Street-violence is a huge issue today because the media have convinced us that it could happen to anyone. Drunken thugs kicking forty-shades of s*** out of each other is acceptable, but when (as we are told) everyone is vulnerable then it becomes everyone's problem.

ISAW wrote:

You see how is it slavery is wrong even when the majority want it or judges say it is? Is right what the powerful or the majority want? Clearly it is not. So where does the right derive from.
By the way one does not have to believe in any God to accept the natural law.

Natural justice and what we sense as 'right' derives from how we function as individuals and family groups, how we interact as members of a society, and how societies pass on lessons about destructive behaviour. I don't believe that had I been an affluent member of Egyptian society three thousand years ago that I would see slavery as anything but the natural order of things, and would be outraged to be expected to respect the human rights of a slave as I would a member of my own class. Natural law has evolved as societies have developed, is a product of those societies, and cannot exist without those societies.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

Because certain behaviours by individuals within social groups, if unrestrained, lead to the destruction of the social fabric from which all members of the society derive benefits.

So it is "natural" to arrive at a point where we suggest some behaviours are not acceptable? I would like point out to you some circular reasoning here. Laws derive naturally from society to protect it. Because without laws society would collapse. Because people would not behave in a way which supports the common good. Because... they dont have laws to tell them what the common good is?

You r argument is based on holding the "social fabric" together. What is the value of this "fabric" based on?

It is because untrammeled murder may satisfy the whim of a single person at the expense of all others within that social group that it is not tolerated. As long as we can go about our everyday business without the constant threat of murder, we save the vast amounts of energy required for constant vigilance.
Consider how most people see crimes of passion as lesser forms of murder than murder during a robbery or a random killing. The victim is no less dead, but the key is that the victim was always going to be the person chosen. Contrast that with modern society's worst nightmare the serial-killer, where any one of us could be the victim. Street-violence is a huge issue today because the media have convinced us that it could happen to anyone. Drunken thugs kicking forty-shades of s*** out of each other is acceptable, but when (as we are told) everyone is vulnerable then it becomes everyone's problem.

ever read the diceman? Random predetermined choice. yet society can become addicted to it. Hey waht is TV? Anyway this model is based on "minimal threat to the vast majority". Oddly modern jurisprudence is not based on getting all the guilty but protecting the innocent. In that way small minorities are protected by niche legislation rather than laws covering the vast majority.

I like your idea that law comes form the most protection for the most people and will derive naturally from the people from that principle but I dont think it is sufficient. Incest, for example is not a "crime" which targets wide groups but is fairly much regarded negatively in most historic cultures.

Natural justice and what we sense as 'right' derives from how we function as individuals and family groups, how we interact as members of a society, and how societies pass on lessons about destructive behaviour. I don't believe that had I been an affluent member of Egyptian society three thousand years ago that I would see slavery as anything but the natural order of things, and would be outraged to be expected to respect the human rights of a slave as I would a member of my own class. Natural law has evolved as societies have developed, is a product of those societies, and cannot exist without those societies.

You happened to pick a society that also had incest, well in the filay Ptolemaic dynasty anyway. But slavery WAS found not to be acceptable there by a culture which was steeped in the law and still is. Ever read Genesis an Exodus?

The Courts today refer to natural and constitutional justice rather than natural law so they have moved baack away from it to a degree. It still exists in law however. The X case is one you might recall where it featured extensively.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

So it is "natural" to arrive at a point where we suggest some behaviours are not acceptable? I would like point out to you some circular reasoning here. Laws derive naturally from society to protect it.

You should try and keep your story straight rather than contradicting yourself. First you say that there is a natural law, now you say laws derive from society (whatever that means). Now these two postulates are opposed to each other, so; what's it to be?

Obni

ISAW wrote:

So it is "natural" to arrive at a point where we suggest some behaviours are not acceptable? I would like point out to you some circular reasoning here. Laws derive naturally from society to protect it. Because without laws society would collapse. Because people would not behave in a way which supports the common good. Because... they dont have laws to tell them what the common good is?

I don't agree that it's circular as much as cumulative. Societies in which certain behaviours are deemed unacceptable may flourish, and as the rules pass from generation to generation they become refined and perhaps more effective (or less, in which case they can be amended). At the risk of starting another off-topic argument, one could say that "natural law" evolves. Granted once laws become established they drive the behaviour of futrue generations, but that saves each generation's having to figure out for themselves what laws are for the benefit of the whole. The establishment of natural laws also allows damaging behaviours such as incest to be discouraged, where the true extent of the damage caused can only be observed over several generations and therefore laws to control it could not be derived within a single generation. Even before the discovery of the mechanics of genetic inheritance, the unwelcome consequences of incest over repeated generations must have become apparent to most cultures at some point in their history. Increase the ratio of unhealthy individuals and you damage the group as a whole.

ISAW wrote:

You happened to pick a society that also had incest, well in the filay Ptolemaic dynasty anyway. But slavery WAS found not to be acceptable there by a culture which was steeped in the law and still is. Ever read Genesis an Exodus?

Yes, and the Israelites did not object slavery, only to their being slaves.
Leviticus includes a whole section on the proper treatment of slaves, and includes directives from God such as
"Lev 25:44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about you. "
"Lev 25:45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property."
I also don't remember Jesus saying anything on the matter of slavery either (though I may well be wrong).

ISAW wrote:

The Courts today refer to natural and constitutional justice rather than natural law so they have moved baack away from it to a degree. It still exists in law however. The X case is one you might recall where it featured extensively.

It is reassuring to know that in some cases it is possible for a legal judgement to be based on what most people feel is right at some basic level, rather than on a law based on received religious teachings.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

[In reference to the X case]
It is reassuring to know that in some cases it is possible for a legal judgement to be based on what most people feel is right at some basic level, rather than on a law based on received religious teachings.

Well then the "natural law" in this case is what is right at a basic level. It is not necessary to have a law written down. for example another case might be the pensioners money in nursing homes or the guys in Donegal persecuted by the police. It is not necessary to have a law to deem it wrong (though in practice for the State to act it probably IS necessary but the point is that the law the state makes is in this case based on natural law).

ISAW

Maybe this is an issue similar to the Middle Ages problem with Universals?

Here is an interesting take on the subject from a skeptics God:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/ockham.htm

as regards the nominalist argument here is a good dismissal of it (on the basis of moralism) and critique of natural law:
http://www.friesian.com/rommen.htm


I suppose I was arguing in a similar way that natural law should stay within a specific domain and not be confused with laws of nature which are in the domain of science and skeptics.

It also contains the following unrelated quote:

A French traveler in the early ninettenth century returned from a trip that included America and Ireland and wrote:

I have seen the Indian in his forests and the Negro in his chains, and thought, as I contemplated their pitiable condition, that I saw the very extreme of human wretchedness; but I did not then know the condition of unfortunate Ireland.
[Ethnic America, Basic Books, 1981, p. 18]

ISAW

Obni wrote:

...
Ultimately most appeals to natural law really are appeals to that which someone believes is held as right and wrong amongst the majority of those in the same society or community. All such laws are constructs of the society in which they exist and have no reality outside those societies.
...

This is one way of looking at it. It suggests morality is socially constructed. It is a form of constructivism. Now i have a big problem with constructivism when it comes to science and education which is related to my original point about natural law, so i am dealing with both types when i suggest that all knowledge is not socially negotiated.

This is an argument which is next to impossible to defend. If i suggest atoms exist then you can say that they are a theoritical construct. Photons, quarks, etc. can all be dealt with in the same way by claiming they are not "really" there and ours is only an interpretation. But I would argue that it is not an interpretation that is socially negotiated. There is some absolute sense of reality. There IS something really there!

One can also enter into the idea raised earlier of "mathematical truth". I would argue that mathematics and numbers exist as a formal system. Others suggest that without people to construct it mathematics has no existence. But even accepting the necessity of people it is not socially negotiated
PI is PI whever you are in the universe. If another alien race has maths they have the same PI.

Finally to mix the two types again the underlying thread is one of absolutism and relativism and is related to such debates as the Middle Age debate on Universals. So Acquinas and other philosophers (and the Church had the best of them) come into the discussion.

The related theology draws from the same underlying philosophy. One recent related event was the week Before Benedict XVI became Pope. Rasinger last sermon as a cardinal was on relativism. Ironically we see this new Pope stress the dangers and threats of relativism (which allows validity to all interpretations of their own truth ) and push forward his own interpretation of what is important for most people.

ISAW

I have been thinking about this over the last few weeks. To give a concise dismissal of eriugenias position that natural law does not exist I would suggest the following.

A universal law position suggests that there are fundamental principles upon which other developments depend. These principles need not refer to other principles since they might not then be fundamental. this idea can apply to morality and to the "laws" of physics.

Then anyone asserting that such fundamentals do not exist is asserting a fundamental principle.

Obni

ISAW wrote:

A universal law position suggests that there are fundamental principles upon which other developments depend. These principles need not refer to other principles since they might not then be fundamental. this idea can apply to morality and to the "laws" of physics.

First of all, if by "natural law" when you refer to the "laws of nature", the field of study of "natural philosophers", be it biology, chemistry, or physics, then I would have to agree.

However, if you are trying to include "natural law" in the sense of natural justice, the idea that there is a set of laws governing the behaviour of people in societies that do not simply evolve to serve the interests of the greatest number of members of that society, but that are somehow as much a part of the rules describing the operation of this universe as Ohm's law, then I don't think you can establish any fundamental position upon which other principles depend.

ISAW

Obni wrote:

First of all, if by "natural law" when you refer to the "laws of nature", the field of study of "natural philosophers", be it biology, chemistry, or physics, then I would have to agree.

Agree that they exist, that they might exist or that they might only be approximations and not exist at all. I assume you mean that they exist i.e. that there is a fundamental theory of everything which science can discover. You will have to accept however that at the present, while there is reasonable evidence such a belief is based on faith.

However, if you are trying to include "natural law" in the sense of natural justice, the idea that there is a set of laws governing the behaviour of people in societies that do not simply evolve to serve the interests of the greatest number of members of that society, but that are somehow as much a part of the rules describing the operation of this universe as Ohm's law, then I don't think you can establish any fundamental position upon which other principles depend.

First of all it is not so certain that there are such laws. Is it not already established above that, in spite of a good deal of rational evidence, a Grand Unified Theory of Everything is at present based on belief?

Second if something evolves there has to be something else to begin with. I dont want to get into a discussion of the meaning of woiirds. "Evolution" can sometimes be misconstrued and misused. When I use it I mean the change in species over time and the like. I do not like to use it in terms of "social evolution2 which is an entirely different use of the word. I do not equate social evolution with biological evolution. In my opinion One is very close ot eugenics in maintaining such a belief. also, one can argue a difference between social "science" and "hard" science.

But if you believe social customs changed over time someone else can say "but murder was always wrong" they can also say "God gave us a concience". This is based on belief on a fundamental principle, just as GUT's are. The difference with GUT's is that one can perform an experiment which will test the GUT whenever someone produces a GUT.

Eriugena

ISAW wrote:

I have been thinking about this over the last few weeks. To give a concise dismissal of eriugenias position that natural law does not exist I would suggest the following.

I never said it did not exist so don't say otherwise. I said that you have failed to demonstrate the existence of natural law after making bold assertions that it did.
You have still failed to demonstrate the existence of natural law.
All you have managed to do is carry out the rather otiose project of demonstrating that there is a tradition which believes in the existence of natural law.

Obni

On the "laws of nature",

ISAW wrote:

I assume you mean that they exist i.e. that there is a fundamental theory of everything which science can discover. You will have to accept however that at the present, while there is reasonable evidence such a belief is based on faith.

I accept fully that at present we do not know anywhere near the full nature of the universe we inhabit, and indeed may never know or even be capable of knowing.

On "natural law" governing our behaviour,

ISAW wrote:

First of all it is not so certain that there are such laws.

In fact, I would that assert that there are no such laws, except those created by ourselves.

ISAW wrote:

I dont want to get into a discussion of the meaning of woiirds.

woiirds???

Indeed my use of evolution was inexact, the idea that natural laws evolve but must have been created in their initial form by early societies would, I guess, make me an old-earth-natural-law-creationist. I would say let's not quibble over words, but quibbling is what this board is all about! :rolleyes:
You chose to use evolution solely in the sense of the the evolution of species by the process of natural selection, that's your choice. The word existed before Darwin and is widely used to describe anything that is modified or refined over time to better suit its purpose or to adapt to new requirements; e.g. the evolution of the motor car. In fact, the motor car is an apt choice, as like natural laws they are constructed entites brought into existence to serve the societies in which they are employed.

ISAW wrote:

But if you believe social customs changed over time someone else can say "but murder was always wrong" they can also say "God gave us a concience". This is based on belief on a fundamental principle, just as GUT's are. The difference with GUT's is that one can perform an experiment which will test the GUT whenever someone produces a GUT.

Again, just to clarify my stance on the issue.
I believe natural laws exist, but are solely to creation of mankind. Even in extreme cases such as child abuse, murder, or even war-crimes, the only wrong perpetrated by the natural-law-breaker is the contravention of the rules developed by societies to protect the members of those societies, not some universal natural law which must of necessity exist and govern our actions.

Capt'n Midnight

What about the anarchists , didn't they believe that if you tore down the old system a new fairer one would evolve in it's place. If my understanding of the "natural law party" is right they are of the same opinion.

Victor

Natural Law is a concept of Law (and to a lesser degree the associated subjects of morality and philosophy). It has nothing to do with the laws of nature or religion or the laws of science, physics or the universe.

Natural Law is the law that existed before common (court law) and statute law (royal / parlimentary law). It gives general principles like right to life, food, movement, association and so on - nothing more complicated than that. As soon as these concepts became developed, through say local custom or communal decision, they ceased to be natural law.

Wicknight wrote:

I am not quite sure what you mean by "natural" law. Do you mean a natural moral law, like the laws defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

This would be close, but the UNDHR is probably more developed than Natural Law.

Obni wrote:

When people use the term "natural law" it is often used to express what they believe is God's law

Then they are using "loose words". There are specific overlaps between natural law and "God's law" (according to whatever religious or philosophical concepts you believe in) that does not mean they are the same.

Obni wrote:

but without using the G-word (e.g. Natural Law party).

Weren't the NLP Buddhist-aligned and don't believe as susch in "a" God?

Obni wrote:

At other times its intended use seems to be "what-I-personally-feel-is-fair-and-just law".

This is of course hi-jacking it in a less than objective way, its more "what-a-reasonable-person-would-decide-knowing-all-the-facts-law"

Obni wrote:

Is the wrongness of murder a natural law?

Yes, many animal recognise killing their own as wrong, I suspect every human society does. It stems from Darwinism (both social and genetic) where those with fraticidal* tendencies tend to be rooted out as unacceptable.

Obni wrote:

I believe natural laws exist, but are solely to creation of mankind. Even in extreme cases such as child abuse, murder, or even war-crimes, the only wrong perpetrated by the natural-law-breaker is the contravention of the rules developed by societies to protect the members of those societies, not some universal natural law which must of necessity exist and govern our actions.

As above, the fratricidial nature of war criminals eventually results in them beings stopped through a variety of means, whether within their own social constructs or societies or outside.

Obni wrote:

What if the person killed has themselves killed another or others? What if they are a traditional enemy attacking our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy threatening to attack our homes? What if they are a traditional enemy whose seemingly innocent activities would leave them in a stronger position from which to threaten to attack our homes?

That is probably expecting too much from natural law. Many societies have interpreted those caveats similarly, and while there is a line between the natural law and the common/statute law, that line is a wide line.

Obni wrote:

There is no "one" natural law.

No, not one. However, all are agreed murder is wrong. Killing, hmmm, what were the circumstance

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

What about the anarchists , didn't they believe that if you tore down the old system a new fairer one would evolve in it's place. If my understanding of the "natural law party" is right they are of the same opinion.

The phrase "natural law" was hi-jacked by the Natural Law Party

* Even those with excessively selfish tendencies - "Hey, I can take them for a ride and not go hunting, because I know they'll share"