Is natural law theory question?

Chat about anything your heart desires here, just be civil. Factual or scientific questions about philosophy go here (e.g. "When was Socrates born?"), and so most homework help questions belong here. Note, posts in the off-topic section will not increase new members post counts. This includes the introductions and feedback sections.
Post Reply
User avatar
Lawskeptic
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: August 4th, 2017, 8:13 am

Is natural law theory question?

Post by Lawskeptic » August 5th, 2017, 9:17 am

Is Natural Law theory consistent with the belief that there is no moral truth outside of the human experience? i.e. That there is only good subject to human goals/desires. There is no inherent good or bad objectively, speaking outside of the human perspective.
?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 874
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is natural law theory question?

Post by -1- » August 5th, 2017, 11:40 pm

I, for one, advocate that mammals that are not human, and birds, all operate in certain circumstances in emotion-driven and even moral behaviour. So the Natual Law law does not do what you said it would do, if you accept my position.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1670
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is natural law theory question?

Post by Hereandnow » August 10th, 2017, 11:16 pm

Just the opposite, I would say Lawskeptic. Haven't thought about it for a while, but if a thing is grounded in nature then it is not wholly a human convention; that is, it is not merely contingent, its meaning not bound up with a particular community's system of values. There is something in nature that abides and constrains regardless of the way a people structure their moral, political world.

Seems you are thinking about the division often drawn between being and becoming, the former beig real and fixed, the latter endlessly changing (you can never step into the same river twice, said Heraclitus; or even once, said Cratylus). But here nature is conceived God's work. I recall an argument between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, with the latter arguing for natural rights winning out over the king's law. I think Paine was a Deist, and believed God's word was written in nature. Thomas Jefferson thought this and wanted nothing better than to be a yeoman farmer so he could stand before God's presence in nature, or something like that.

Post Reply