Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.
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.
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: August 4th, 2017, 8:13 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.
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
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.
- Posts: 2061
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
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.