The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Natural Law » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (5 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5024 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, landmark wrote:
I probably don't have the background to even participate in this discussion, but if anyone feels up to educating me, a few questions.

1. Natural Law seems to have been interpreted in several ways over the centuries. Sometimes a counter-example is useful for explanations. What are some of the ways of looking at morality in a non-Natural way?

2. If Nature tells us what "good" is, why do we not all have the same morality (or do we?)

3. Who gets to tell us what Nature is saying about the "good."?

4. Why is this way of looking at morality more useful than other ways? What's the secret sauce?

If you want some starting point for discussion, I'll throw out my own naive version of the foundation of morality. Then if you like you can tell me why it is or is not part of Natural Law, and so on.

So my premise is this: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; do not do unto others that which is hateful to yourself.
My contention is that that premise is available without recourse to a supernatural being or some correlative in the non-human part of Nature.
I don't think it's an innate premise of the brain like language, otherwise all humans would believe it and act on it.
On the other hand, I think it is an axiom and not a theorem.
I believe we are taught it by, and learn it from, our betters.

2. Because we don't all interpret information identically. We can attend the same lecture and come back with different understandings of it.
4. Morality isn't necessarily useful.

Okay, we're way off base in this thread now, but I'll try to get back to the question of the OP (whoever that was).
2. Perhaps, but I would posit it's because we don't in fact have the same axioms. Some may have the Golden Rule and others may have, for example, Some Are More Equal Than Others. If we look to Nature, I contend that it may well be that we will find only the reflection of our already embedded axioms.

4. I'm not asking about he usefulness of morality, I'm asking about the usefulness of having a point of view that posits Natural Law as a starting point, as opposed to any other theory of morality.

Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, stoneunhinged wrote:
I'll bite, but I'll wait until a few others have posted.

The problem with "do unto others" is that it is not compelling to someone who chooses to ignore it. What's the penalty if you "do unto yourself"?

Morality isn't (imo) necessarily utilitarian; it just happens to have some nice utilitarian side effects. No law is compelling to someone who chooses to ignore it. There doesn't have to be a penalty involved for the wrong thing to be the wrong thing.

Definitely agree with Lobo on that. Morality is one thing; a justice system is another. The morality system informs the justice system, and one can often deduce the morality system from the justice system, but they are not one and the same.

Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, stoneunhinged wrote:
Well, Jack? See why you can't philosophize in an Internet forum? You ask about natural law and you get a discussion about the existence of God.

Let's talk about HITLER instead!

You warned me. Well, I guess I'll try for another day and see how it goes.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:

I don't think that the question lies in the "source" of morality.



The stem of the OP was about natural law. In ethics, this is the belief that there are "free-standing" principles of morality that are discoverable by human reason. In most interpretations, the source of this natural law is Divine.

Another approach is to suggest that there are natural law principles of morality that are part of the structure of rationality itself--if you properly understand and ask the question "what should I do", then your reason alone will lead you (in principle) to the correct response.

There is also a family of theories of legal justice that appeal to natural law, but that's another topic altogether.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
Back on topic, I see the Golden Rule as not being all about self, it doesn’t mean that you should treat someone else exactly as you’d
want them to treat you … it means that you should try to visualize how they want to be treated, and do that.

Tom


AKA "The Platinum Rule."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:

I don't think that the question lies in the "source" of morality.



The stem of the OP was about natural law. In ethics, this is the belief that there are "free-standing" principles of morality that are discoverable by human reason. In most interpretations, the source of this natural law is Divine.

Another approach is to suggest that there are natural law principles of morality that are part of the structure of rationality itself--if you properly understand and ask the question "what should I do", then your reason alone will lead you (in principle) to the correct response.

There is also a family of theories of legal justice that appeal to natural law, but that's another topic altogether.


Maybe there is an an assumption that human reason today can come up with the "golden rules" etc.

One cannot assume that today's human reason did not evolve from the provision of morality given from ancient religions.

For example. I have no doubt that the morality given in the Baha'i Writings is progressive even by today's human standards, in fact in mid 19th century Iran the teachings were radical. Fast forward 3000 years and I am sure that what is taught in the Baha'i Writings will be so well established that it would be considered "natural law" capable of being deduced by human reason alone.

The same applies to the Golden Rule etc. These moral standards were given to humanity, not deduced from nothing, in my humble opinion.


Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:
Maybe there is an an assumption that human reason today can come up with the "golden rules" etc.

One cannot assume that today's human reason did not evolve from the provision of morality given from ancient religions.


Nor can you assume that it does. It can be argued that it survived despite the efforts to destroy it with dogma because it is superior.

Quote:
For example. I have no doubt that the morality given in the Baha'i Writings is progressive even by today's human standards, in fact in mid 19th century Iran the teachings were radical. Fast forward 3000 years and I am sure that what is taught in the Baha'i Writings will be so well established that it would be considered "natural law" capable of being deduced by human reason alone.


It could also be a minor footnote in history. Looked at by future people in astonishment when they think about the fact that ancient man actually considered it valid.
Just keeping it real and balanced.

Quote:
The same applies to the Golden Rule etc. These moral standards were given to humanity, not deduced from nothing, in my humble opinion.
Kam


Agreed, they weren't deduced from nothing, because nothing is deduced from nothing. Things are learned from experience.
But, out of curiosity, given to humanity by whom?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:

But, out of curiosity, given to humanity by whom?


Well this is the oldest known recording of the Golden Rule:

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self.

—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8


That was given by God.

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:

But, out of curiosity, given to humanity by whom?


Well this is the oldest known recording of the Golden Rule:

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self.

—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8


That was given by God.

Kam


So, god picked up a pen and paper and actually wrote something down. Impressive.

Silly me. Here I thought a human wrote it down and said it was from god, and if he said it, it must be true.
Because he said it.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Ok suit yourself

It was given by Krishna

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:
Ok suit yourself

It was given by Krishna

Kam


So.......not god?
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2819 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
Back on topic, I see the Golden Rule as not being all about self, it doesn’t mean that you should treat someone else exactly as you’d
want them to treat you … it means that you should try to visualize how they want to be treated, and do that.

Tom


AKA "The Platinum Rule."


Yes, works better than the ‘me’ rule. Smile

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1194 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, TomBoleware wrote:
Ron,

Are you wanting me to say God sends people to hell?

God does nothing to them. If they do end up someplace other than with him, it was their choice. Why blame God?

Or that's my thinking. I could be wrong.

Tom

I personally have problems with; "Ah, Mahati Ghandi. You did wonderful work, you led your people to freedom through non-violence and peaceful means. But you chose NOT to believe in ME or in the divinity of my Son and so therefore you are denied everlasting life."

No one has everlasting life. We all have an immortal soul. That my friend is a huge difference.

Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, kambiz wrote:
Ok suit yourself

It was given by Krishna

Kam

So.......not god?

Not sure what god you are talking about. As the God I know, as the One true God, is the One with a Capital "G" in the spelling. So not sure which one you mean. Could you be more specific and maybe someone could answer your question of, So.......not god? So........which not god are you referring too? Smile
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2819 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Http://www.amazon.com/The-Platinum-Rule-......_title_0



I’ve never read the book but I did listen to the speaker Tony Alessandra after your first post. He is good. Thanks for the link.

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, acesover wrote:

No one has everlasting life. We all have an immortal soul. That my friend is a huge difference.


Not sure how you missed one of most famous and widely quoted passages in the New Testament:

Quote:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


[emphasis added]
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, acesover wrote:

No one has everlasting life. We all have an immortal soul. That my friend is a huge difference.


Not sure how you missed one of most famous and widely quoted passages in the New Testament:

Quote:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


Not much of a Bible scholar are you Bob? We are all sinners if you read the Bible. For all sinners the consequences is death. Now let me explain. That is why God gave His only Son for our sins to be forgiven. I don't want to get involved in a Bible debate here but you are way off base. Obviously you do not understand the meaning of life and death in this context of the Bible. Stick with the legal stuff and Jim Crow. Smile

Death in this context is the absence of being with God for eternity. Ever lasting Life is being in the presence of God for eternity. Again please do not take the Bible so literally. By this time you should know better. It is a little deeper than that. You are in deep water here when discussing the Bible and its meanings. Next you will tell me that Adam and Eve were punished because they ate an apple.

So what I am saying in this instance Bob is that you don't know what you are talking about. That is as plain as I can make it. Don't let it damage your ego. You are still a smart guy.

If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
173 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Ron- Must be the old Catholic in me, but Pope Francis gave a pretty good answer to your question:
Quote:
In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience...”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/......062.html

Thanks Bob.

But then there's this...
Quote:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi

Did Pope Francis say atheists don’t need to believe in God to be saved? (9 things to know)
Contrary to claims otherwise, Pope Francis did not say that atheists can go to heaven without coming to faith, and he most certainly did not say that man can save himself by his own efforts.

Indeed, he speaks of the need for God’s mercy.

and this...
Quote:
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/

What Pope Francis Really said About Atheiosts
Pope Francis did not say that an atheist who does naturally good things can be saved if he dies an atheist. Yet that is the impression given by Catholic Online’s half truth headline…

The Pope… simply reminded the faithful that there can be, and is, goodness, or natural virtue, outside the Church. And that Christ’s death on the Cross redeemed all men. He paid the price so that every man could come to God and be saved.

Also, Pope Francis is just one of a long line of Popes. Have every single one of all the previous Popes in history been in agreement with Pope Francis on this issue? I seriously doubt it. So now we have the problem of determining which Pope was correct. And why would there be disagreement amongst Popes anyway? Doesn't that tell you something about the arbitrary nature of religion?

Anyway, I'd like to hear a straight answer from Tom as to what he thinks should happen to good nonbelievers after they die. If he (Tom) ran the Universe, how would he (Tom) treat nonbelievers?

Ron
[quote]On Apr 16, 2015, acesover wrote:
Next you will tell me that Adam and Eve were punished because they ate an apple.
[quote]But whatever they were punished for, we're still paying the price for their "sin", no?

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
mastermindreader
View Profile
V.I.P.
Seattle, WA
12589 Posts

Profile of mastermindreader
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On Apr 16, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Ron- Must be the old Catholic in me, but Pope Francis gave a pretty good answer to your question:

Quote:
In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

Responding to a list of questions published in the paper by Mr Scalfari, who is not a Roman Catholic, Francis wrote: “You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience.

“Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience...”


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/......062.html


Thanks Bob.

But then there's this...

Quote:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-say-atheists-dont-need-to-believe-in-god-to-be-saved-9-thi

Did Pope Francis say atheists don’t need to believe in God to be saved? (9 things to know)
Contrary to claims otherwise, Pope Francis did not say that atheists can go to heaven without coming to faith, and he most certainly did not say that man can save himself by his own efforts.

Indeed, he speaks of the need for God’s mercy.



and this...

Quote:
http://www.catholicvote.org/what-pope-francis-really-said-about-atheists/

What Pope Francis Really said About Atheiosts
Pope Francis did not say that an atheist who does naturally good things can be saved if he dies an atheist. Yet that is the impression given by Catholic Online’s half truth headline…

The Pope… simply reminded the faithful that there can be, and is, goodness, or natural virtue, outside the Church. And that Christ’s death on the Cross redeemed all men. He paid the price so that every man could come to God and be saved.


Also, Pope Francis is just one of a long line of Popes. Have every single one of all the previous Popes in history been in agreement with Pope Francis on this issue? I seriously doubt it. So now we have the problem of determining which Pope was correct. And why would there be disagreement amongst Popes anyway? Doesn't that tell you something about the arbitrary nature of religion?

Anyway, I'd like to hear a straight answer from Tom as to what he thinks should happen to good nonbelievers after they die. If he (Tom) ran the Universe, how would he (Tom) treat nonbelievers?

Ron


I'm just a Deist, Ron. I just do the best I can in this life and hope for the best in the next, if there is one.

But I like Pope Francis and I was going by what he actually said, rather than the multiple interpretations less progressive Catholics have given as alternative meanings.
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2819 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Ron,

At first it was "what do you think God does with law abiding, productive and respectful people who do not believe in any gods?"

I answered you three times and said, God left that decision up to you. You either believe or you don’t believe. If you believe then you have a shot at heaven,
if you don’t then you end up someplace else.

I can’t say for sure where that someplace else is. Maybe Alaska or out in the hot desert somewhere, I don’t know. None of us know for sure yet.

Now you changing the question to what “Should” happen to them?


I believe the rules are already set and I can't change them. It's out of my hands.

Where you go,that’s not up to me to decide. That’s a decision we each have to make on our own. I can’t make it for you or you can’t make it for me. It’s that simple.

It’s like this Ron. If you want to go to New York you buy a ticket to New York. You don’t go down to the airport and buy a ticket to Africa and then complain
they didn’t send you to New York. You think the ticket sellers are the blame? It was your choice. You think the airline is at fault? All the signs said you going
the wrong way Ron, but you kept on going anyway. Your ticket clearly reads Africa bound, and now here you are wandering around in the jungle saying why am I here. Smile

I don't know what happens to us after we die. Just like I don't know when I will have an accident or die. That is why I have insurance. I just don't know.

Tom

PS. Ok to play along, here is your straight answer:

Ron, If I ran the Universe I would save you a seat in heaven.

But I’m not sure how good of a seat that would be if you flat out refused to believe me or mocked me right up to the end.
I would be forgiving but not sure I would forget all the things you did. Honestly I probably wouldn't make a good God.

Tom
Kind People Are The Best Kind Of People

www.tomboleware.com
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
R.S.

St. Thomas Aquinas nailed it some 700 years ago.

For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice

I an many have faith. You and many don't. That is where Free Will comes into play. That is believers and nonbelievers. As I have said in the past. "Believe what you will, and I will also". That way everyone is happy.

I don't have to convince myself as I already believe, and I am surely not interested in convincing you to believe what I believe, as I have no interest in playing a missionary.

We should move on. This has been discussed many times and usually ends up getting deleted.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On Apr 15, 2015, R.S. wrote:
Do YOU personally think that that is a just system? Would YOU run the universe that way if YOU were God?

Ron: you've asked these questions many times of Christians.

Of what use is our opinion of whether that system is just or not?

How could we possibly know how we would run the universe if we were in charge?

And of what use is our opinion on how we'd run the universe?
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Natural Law » » TOPIC IS LOCKED (5 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9~10 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.28 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL