Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The following is from Chapter 2 of the unfinished book Political Treatise:

Man can, indeed, act contrarily to the decrees of God, as far as they have been written like laws in the minds of ourselves or the prophets, but against that eternal decree of God, which is written in universal nature, and has regard to the course of nature as a whole, he can do nothing.

In the state of nature, wrong-doing is impossible ; or, if anyone does wrong, it is to himself, not to another. For no one by the law of nature is bound to please another, unless he chooses, nor to hold anything to be good or evil, but what he himself, according to his own temperament, pronounces to be so ; and, to speak generally, nothing is forbidden by the law of nature, except what is beyond everyone's power.

What do you think? Do you agree with Spinoza about this?

[Macreen Ouko]

In Spinoza's ethical philosophy, he argued that wrong-doing is a result of inadequate understanding. He believed that with a clear understanding of God/nature, individuals would naturally act in accordance with reason, leading to virtuous behavior. Thus, Spinoza considered the idea of wrongdoing as stemming from human limitations in grasping the divine order.

[Sushan]

I too believe that the notions 'correct' and 'wrong' are applicable only in the societal framework. In the nature itself, everything is the nature and there are no differences between them as right or wrong, or should or shouldn't.

But what I can't grasp is that someone harming another being taken as choosing to harm one's own self. So does that mean the one who got affected chose the harm to be inflicted on them. I don't think so, or else I still have much to understand in this concept.