SB is one of UD’s treasures, who often puts up gems as comments. Accordingly, I headline his current response to Mung on laws of (human) nature:
_______________
>>Mung
SB,
Can you explain why the natural moral law requires a lawgiver?
ETA: I don’t believe in natural laws, I believe in natures/essences. So keep that in mind.
[SB, reply:] Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together.
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the
Aristotle’s four causes (HT: VPC courtesy Google)
ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word “law” has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the “law of human nature” or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, — or nature giver.>>
________________
Well worth pondering, especially in light of the necessary balance of rights, freedoms, duties and responsibilities that marks the distinction between liberty within the pale of the civil peace of justice, and the abusive, ill-advised and ultimately ruinous chaos that results from license . . . the abuse of freedom. END
Comments
Carpathian,
I think you owe an apology to to anthropic and others too, for twisting and attacking the man through guilt by invidious association:
[a:] Rather, it means leaving the punishment on this Earth to those who have God given authority to punish on this Earth, plus God in the life to come.
[c:] This is a very frightening statement.
This is the type of thinking that leads fundamentalist groups to believe they have a right to kill infidels.
Have you ever heard of courts, police, laws with sanctions, the power of the sword in justice -- as in those statues with blindfolded Justice with scales in one hand and the sword in the other -- and the rightful power of civil magistrates to punish wrongdoers?
That, in context is what Anthropic was talking about and Harry was talking about. Indeed, it is what I was talking about.
Let me cite the main classic scriptural text that is at stake here:
Rom 13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. [--> note this controlling context, just gov't is being discussed, here actually in the days of Nero's tutelage when Seneca and Burris delivered on good government] But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. [ESV, cf discussion here on.]
The next several vv. are just as telling as they turn to citizenship in society:
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. 12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
It is utterly, sadly revealing that you jumped immediately to a scare-mongering slanderous conflation of the proper power of the state under God to defend the civil peace of justice from its enemies foreign and domestic, with Islamofascist terrorists and the like.
You have some serious walking back to do.
KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
anthropic:
Rather, it means leaving the punishment on this Earth to those who have God given authority to punish on this Earth, plus God in the life to come.
This is a very frightening statement.
This is the type of thinking that leads fundamentalist groups to believe they have a right to kill infidels.
No one has a right from God to punish anyone.
No one has a right from God to tell anyone else what to do.Carpathian
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
Box @19
Thanks again for your comments. What I was getting at is this: For me, a good or moral act is one that leads one to his destiny (union with God) and a bad or immoral act is one that pulls him away from that destiny. In that sense, there is a law of morality that dictates which behaviors are consistently successful for putting one on the right path and which ones are not.
Is it also the case for you that a good act is one that predictably and consistently leads to a goal (which is, for you, harmony) and a bad act is one that predictably and consistently does the opposite? If so, why would that not be a law. If not, what do you mean by a "good" act? Or, does your model even recognize such a thing as good and bad behavior?StephenB
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Box @20,
I think there are some real problems here, but I didn't/don't understand your position fully so I'll go back to lurking . . .Brent
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Brent: Pardon, but in reality this relies on an assumption of an ultimate “law” to tell us what is harmonious. I.E., we assume that what we now think is harmonious relates to some objective something. If not, whence our confidence of what constitutes harmony?
We simply sense (feel) it within, or rather learn to sense it. Similarly, how do we know that something is true? We understand it. We don't need an external authority ( or we shouldn't) to tell us what is true and what is not—while being completely oblivious/neutral to the truth ourselves.
anthropic: What, after all, could be less harmonious than the bloodbath of the Civil War?
Harmonious behavior, as I use the term, is not necessarily being in harmony with one's environment—not at all. If being harmonious with one's environment precludes being harmonious with oneself it is not harmonious behavior.
Like I said in #13:
If there is a lack of harmony in one’s surrounding then the most ‘harmonious’ behavior is the behavior that advances harmony the most, which paradoxically can be overturning the tables of the money changers.Box
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
StephenB,
Thank you for your questions.
A brief note:
In my worldview God has designed the universe and the earth specifically to advance our learning process towards enlightenment. We are purely spiritual beings who can pop in and out bodies—consistent with NDE experiences—which in fact we do, many times (reincarnation). Reincarnation guarantees that we can all exhaustively experience every stage of the learning process.
IOW everything is aimed at our spiritual growth, which includes morality.
StephenB: So, for you, the final “good” is personal, social, and cultural harmony.
The final good (harmony) comes into view when one is enlightened and surrounded by others who are also enlightened. Here on earth, in the midst of our learning process, there can only be imperfection and some sparkles of good.
StephenB: To attain that goal, you must work through a slow and difficult process with many successes and failures along the way.
A few Questions: Is there such a thing as a morality proper to the attainment of harmony?
I take it that you are asking if the end justifies the means. I think so. Whatever is necessary to attain our enlightenment will happen. I hold that Auschwitz happened because it was an essential lesson.
StephenB: Can it be predicted which behaviors will take you closer to that goal and which ones will take you further away? Does a person who has reached the ideal stage of harmony consistently behave in ways that a person who experiences disharmony would not? Can those behaviors be identified and classified? Could any of the aforementioned trends be loosely characterized as a “rule” or “law” for the attainment of harmony?
Suppose that the only lesson God wants us to learn, during our multiple stays on earth, is the ‘Atheist vs. Theist Debate’. Now obviously atheism is absolutely wrong (and very disharmonious) and theism is absolutely right. However to get a perfect understanding of this debate it is necessary to be on the wrong side—at least during several lifetimes—since a perfect understanding implies looking at a thing from all angles. This is illustrated by the fact that some theists bring exceptional insight to the table partly due to the fact that they used to be atheists. Moreover we cannot learn enough if everyone is on the right side from the start.
Is there a rule or law to this? Maybe: “look at something from all angles”.
StephenB: What about the state of harmony itself? Are there rules attendant to that psychological condition, if we can call it that? Would certain mental states immediately disqualify one from harmony? Wouldn’t there be a law against conflict, or strife, or dissent?
The state of being in perfect harmony with oneself is actually my definition of freedom. Is freedom bound by rule?
StephenB: What about the problem of identity? Would there be room for individuality? Or would it consist of a kind of merger into being?
Individuality is top priority. Being in harmony with oneself is the very definition of individuality.
StephenB: If it is one of these, would there not be a law against the other? Would there be diversity in unity, unity without diversity, or diversity without unity? Logically, only one of these three conditions is possible, ruling out the other two.
Would you care to elaborate? I’m not sure I understand your question.Box
July 22, 2015
July
07
Jul
22
22
2015
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
SB 16
Good points. I'd add that if harmony on a personal, social, and cultural level is the ultimate virtue, the abolitionists were evil. What, after all, could be less harmonious than the bloodbath of the Civil War?
Folks who objected to giving their babies up for a fiery death to placate Molech violated harmony in their culture. So were the people who hid Jews from the Nazis. And so are the people who give of their time, money, and energy to oppose abortion.anthropic
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT
harry 8
Thanks for the scriptural listing. I'd also point out that Romans 12 states that we are to leave revenge up to God, which is usually taken to mean in the afterlife. However, Romans 13 goes on to say that the government has been given the sword to act as God's servant in punishing evil and rewarding good. Thus, leaving it up to God does not mean doing nothing. Rather, it means leaving the punishment on this Earth to those who have God given authority to punish on this Earth, plus God in the life to come.
This logical connection is often ignored because of the rather arbitrary designation of chapters 12 and 13 in Romans. Chapters were inserted later to make references easier, but were not in the original manuscript.anthropic
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
Box
What is ‘absolute morality’? It is not, I would argue, the following of an external set of laws, but it is a loving person succeeding in his goal of being in harmony with himself and (if possible) with his surroundings. If there is a lack of harmony in one’s surrounding then the most ‘harmonious’ behavior is the behavior that advances harmony the most, which paradoxically can be overturning the tables of the money changers.
So, in my view, it’s an internal drive, a learning process, that takes us to harmony and morality.
Again, very interesting. Truly.
So, for you, the final “good” is personal, social, and cultural harmony. To attain that goal, you must work through a slow and difficult process with many successes and failures along the way.
A few Questions: Is there such a thing as a morality proper to the attainment of harmony? Can it be predicted which behaviors will take you closer to that goal and which ones will take you further away? Does a person who has reached the ideal stage of harmony consistently behave in ways that a person who experiences disharmony would not? Can those behaviors be identified and classified? Could any of the aforementioned trends be loosely characterized as a “rule” or “law” for the attainment of harmony?
What about the state of harmony itself? Are there rules attendant to that psychological condition, if we can call it that? Would certain mental states immediately disqualify one from harmony? Wouldn’t there be a law against conflict, or strife, or dissent?
What about the problem of identity? Would there be room for individuality? Or would it consist of a kind of merger into being? If it is one of these, would there not be a law against the other? Would there be diversity in unity, unity without diversity, or diversity without unity? Logically, only one of these three conditions is possible, ruling out the other two.StephenB
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
Box @13,
I would say that our innate destiny is to be in harmony with ourselves and others (one day). And the purpose of harmony is harmony.
Pardon, but in reality this relies on an assumption of an ultimate "law" to tell us what is harmonious. I.E., we assume that what we now think is harmonious relates to some objective something. If not, whence our confidence of what constitutes harmony? If, however, that objective something was other than what we now believe it is, then what is harmonious might actually be beating your neighbor.
There is no reason to believe that harmony deserves a capital "H", but if you should like to do so, then know what that means.Brent
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
And StephenB, thank you for addressing my question.
I'm currently reading a chapter on moral arguments for the existence of God and how they rely on our innate intuitions about morality.
A quote from that chapter:
Across cultures, humans have spontaneous evaluative dispositions toward the actions or character of other people. Such attitudes include feelings of liking or disliking a particular person, and evaluating actions as praiseworthy or blameworthy. Moral psychologists have demonstrated that these evaluations occur rapidly and unreflectively. For instance, many Western participants think it is morally wrong for two adult siblings to have a single instance of protected, consensual sex (Haidt 2001). However, when asked why they feel such actions are wrong, many people cannot articulate reasons or arguments. In spite of this inability to justify their moral intuitions, people feel strongly about them: they are not just judgments of taste or matters of individual preference.
I've always wondered how the atheists who come here always manage to find their morality when it suits them.Mung
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
StephenB,
Thank you for your reply.
StephenB: Who decides what the nature of that good will be? Who decides what our ultimate (not temporal) goal or destiny is supposed to be? Obviously, that purpose cannot come from the creature. It can only come from the Creator.
I don't see the necessity for a set of laws. Allow me to explain. Suppose the creator made us so that our core content is 'love'. Now love, as I use the term here, refers to something that, by its very nature, strives for harmony. Harmony with oneself, parents, children, friends, society. However this striving constitutes a constant struggle. You cannot do all at once. Choices have to be made. Priorities have to be set. Mistakes, confusion and frustration abound, but sometimes a moment of harmony.
It's a learning process.
Now, this 'love' doesn't need laws to tell it that it needs to strive for harmony, because that is the nature of love, as I see it.
What is 'absolute morality'? It is not, I would argue, the following of an external set of laws, but it is a loving person succeeding in his goal of being in harmony with himself and (if possible) with his surroundings. If there is a lack of harmony in one's surrounding then the most 'harmonious' behavior is the behavior that advances harmony the most, which paradoxically can be overturning the tables of the money changers.
So, in my view, it's an internal drive, a learning process, that takes us to harmony and morality.
The key point is this: If we do not have a destiny or a purpose then we cannot be good or bad. Purpose and morality are inseparable. If we have no purpose, then morality cannot exist.
I would say that our innate destiny is to be in harmony with ourselves and others (one day). And the purpose of harmony is harmony.Box
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Box
I don’t agree that here we can disregard the obvious category difference between can openers and human beings. I believe that morality is intrinsic to human beings and not a law imposed on him from the outside. I also hold that morality is a ‘work in progress’. Step-by-step we grow and are on our way to personal enlightenment, freedom and morality.
IOW ethical behavior is only ethical behavior if it stems from within and if it’s done consciously. Obeying an incomprehensible external law is fitting for a can-opener, but degrades human beings. Moreover, obeying external laws we don’t understand don’t make our behavior moral.
Box, thank you for the comment. It was obviously well thought out. Yes, I agree that morality is practiced “from the inside.”
My emphasis, though, is on the source of the good to which the moral life strives. Who decides what the nature of that good will be? Who decides what our ultimate (not temporal) goal or destiny is supposed to be? Obviously, that purpose cannot come from the creature. It can only come from the Creator.
It is in this sense that we resemble the can opener. Just as the can opener cannot decide why it was made, we cannot decide why we were made. Just as the can opener cannot decide what it means to be a good can opener, we cannot decide what it means to be a good person.
(Of course, Christians hold that the practice of the natural virtues is not enough to attain the ultimate goal (union with God). Our virtues and our (wounded) nature, must be supernaturalized through grace. We cannot save ourselves. All the power to attain our final goal comes from above, but that is another story. [Not all Christians agree on how this works exactly, but all recognize the substance of the Goal and the fact that we cannot attain it on our own power.)
The key point is this: If we do not have a destiny or a purpose then we cannot be good or bad. Purpose and morality are inseparable. If we have no purpose, then morality cannot exist.
Short of our ultimate destiny, humans can, with knowledge and discipline, still do good things on their own and in a natural way. We have an intellect to know what is good for us and a will to guide our behavior in that direction. Yes, these faculties are on the inside and we use them from the inside.
But where did these faculties come from and who decided what they should be used for? Not from us, I would argue. Even the natural goods that these faculties help us attain were determined by the Creator. We didn’t decide that air and water are good for us, God did. We didn’t decide that sex has a unitive and procreative purpose, God did. We didn’t decide that love is better than hate, God did. Most importantly, we didn’t decide that we were made to be with God, God did.
In truth, the moral law is the owner’s manual for a human being. It tells us which kinds of behavior promote unity, health, and life, and which ones promote disunity, pathology, and death. We can find it in our heart, in nature, and, most profoundly, in God's Divine revelation. Yes, we practice virtue and experience happiness from the inside, but the meaning of virtue and the source of happiness come from the outside.StephenB
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, thanks for providing a forum for further discussion.StephenB
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
kairosfocus,
Thanks for the links. I read at the "Mene, Mene, Tekel, Parsin" link:
Consequently Daniel chs 1 – 6, which the key facts show dates to C6 BC rather than the C2 BC often argued by those who a priori assume that prophecy (as a miracle) is impossible ...
Which reminded me of a book of which you are probably already aware, but just in case you are not: On the Reliability of the Old Testament by K. A. Kitchen, who is
Personal and Brunner Professor Emeritus of Egyptology and Honorary Research Fellow at the School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool, England. He is one of the leading experts on the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period, having written over 250 books and journal articles on this and other subjects since the mid-1950s. He has been described by The Times as "the very architect of Egyptian chronology".
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kitchen
Kitchen, a world renowned Egyptologist, makes a convincing case for the historicity of the Old Testament and reveals the absurdity of much of modern Scripture scholarship in an extremely scholarly manner and sometimes with a caustic tone that I found delightful (some reviewers criticize him for this). I am guessing you would enjoy this book.harry
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Harry, keep on going. KF
PS: You may find these interesting:
http://kairosfocus.blogspot.com/2013/01/acts-27-test-1-on-celebrating-new-year.html
http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2xfrmn
http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Government_under_God.htmkairosfocus
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
kairosfocus
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ...
First, I believe establishing governments according to the principles proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence is the best hope for humanity in securing its "Safety and Happiness," in so far as governments are able to do that. (There are other factors in our securing "Safety and Happiness" that are definitely not within the purview of government.) It is impossible to establish a utopia in this life, but the application of the principles of the DOI will bring us much nearer to one than any government established on other founding principles.
Having said that, allow me to reconcile the phrase "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" with Christian belief. Why does it need to be reconciled with Christian belief? The Scriptures and Christian tradition both affirm that the authority of government comes from God, not from the consent of the governed:
By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me princes rule, and nobles govern the earth.
-- Proverbs 8:15-16
Pilate therefore said to him, "You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?" Jesus answered him, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above ..."
-- John 19:10-11
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
-- Rom 13:1-2
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.
-- 1 Peter 2:13-14
... we do not attribute the power of giving kingdoms and empires to any save to the true God ...
-- Augustine, City of God
The just power of government comes from God. Exactly who exercises that authority coming from God, and within what form of government it will be exercised, is what is derived from "the consent of the governed."
Since only the just power of government comes from God, government's unjust use of power has no genuine authority. When government pretends to have the authority to withdraw inalienable rights from a segment of humanity, such as the right to life itself, we have not only the right, but also the duty, as the Founders proclaimed, to alter or abolish such government.
When government mandates compliance with that which violates the "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God" and tramples upon the God-given, inalienable rights of humanity, is when Christians must say with Peter and the Apostles: "We must obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29)harry
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Box, As Locke highlighted, we have a "candle" within; shining the light of conscience on heart and mind. The core precepts of morally governed life are in significant part intelligible on reflecting on our nature and how we feel when our legitimate rights are violated . . . though we tend to confuse things, imagining that license is liberty. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Box, doesn't this mean that nobody ever does anything against (their) morality???Brent
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
StephenB: The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree.
I agree when you refer to things.
StephenB: A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate.
I don't agree that here we can disregard the obvious category difference between can openers and human beings. I believe that morality is intrinsic to human beings and not a law imposed on him from the outside. I also hold that morality is a 'work in progress'. Step-by-step we grow and are on our way to personal enlightenment, freedom and morality.
IOW ethical behavior is only ethical behavior if it stems from within and if it's done consciously. Obeying an incomprehensible external law is fitting for a can-opener, but degrades human beings. Moreover, obeying external laws we don't understand don't make our behavior moral.Box
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT
F/N 4: Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1765:
>>Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 - 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 - 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 - 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian's Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe].>>
Again, we need to think afresh.
KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
F/N 3: Locke again, on the candle set up in us, in the intro to his essay on human understanding:
>> Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says [NB: i.e. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments [Prov 1: 1 - 7], that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties [cf Rom 1 - 2, Ac 17, etc, etc]. Men may find matter sufficient to busy their heads, and employ their hands with variety, delight, and satisfaction, if they will not boldly quarrel with their own constitution, and throw away the blessings their hands are filled with, because they are not big enough to grasp everything . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [Matt 24:42 - 51], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes . . . If we will disbelieve everything, because we cannot certainly know all things, we shall do muchwhat as wisely as he who would not use his legs, but sit still and perish, because he had no wings to fly.>>
Again, let us think afresh.
KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
F/N 2: Locke, grounding what would become modern liberty and democracy, cites Hooker; in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2:
>>. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. [--> Thus, we most easily perceive and regard this duty when owed to us, now we must see that others of like duty are owed the same . . . where our evident natural constitution, our surrounding world and our interior life join together in speaking to us through heart, mind and conscience, but are we inclined to listen?] From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]>>
More foundational food for thought in the face of chaos and confusion.
KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2015
July
07
Jul
21
21
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
F/N: Observe, the charter of modern, representative democracy as it speaks to laws of our nature:
>> When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.>>
More food for thought.
KFkairosfocus
[SB, reply:] Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together.
I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?
If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the
ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.
The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.
With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).
A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.
Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word “law” has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.
These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the “law of human nature” or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, — or nature giver.>>