[thegreenman]

Everybody can clearly see that America is having a crisis.

And it seems to be a crisis about the very nature of law, and what it means to be law-abiding. As long as these police-violence videos keep coming out (and they will), the people will rapidly lose confidence in the basic soundness and validity of the system known as "law and government."

We're heading for a point where we'll have to discuss the very foundation of law, including what it's made of, how it's constructed, and where it comes from.

I would like to contribute to this discussion by offering up a primer on Natural Law.

***

Natural Law can best be described as the notion that law is preexisting, rather than "made" by humans.

There exists a set of principles for how people (or any sentient life) should conduct themselves in relation to other sentient life, and that these principles existed before sentient life developed, and that, as it developed, it inherited an already-existing system of morality.

People cannot make law; but what we can do is discover and describe what is already there.

Let's use an example of, say... murder. Here's how several different systems interpret it:

Monarchy: Murder is wrong because the king made a law saying so.
Republicanism: Murder is wrong because the people's elected representatives made a law saying so.
Democracy: Murder is wrong because the people have arrived at a consensus that it is so.

Natural Law: Murder is wrong because it just is, and any individual with a functioning brain can figure that out on his own.

All people are endowed with a built-in moral compass that tells them what is right and wrong. Some believe that there may be a tiny fraction of people (perhaps 1-2%) who, for some as-yet-enigmatic reason, are devoid of this, whom we call "sociopaths", but they are a tiny minority. The standard model of a human comes with the internal moral navigation system.

It's definitely possible to distract a person from accessing his navigation system, and to distort it through propaganda and social conditioning. But the system still remains, and if the person is able to quiet his mind and momentarily step outside of the conditioned part of it (such as perhaps through meditation), he can regain access to the system, and once again read what it says, and apply it to whatever situation its wisdom is needed for.

Law and morality are preexisting, intrinsic, and eternal. They are not made by humans, and thus cannot be unmade by us either.

Let's use another example: the utilization of psychoactive plants.

According to Natural Law, it is a crime to initiate violence against another person, except in defense. You can assault, batter, rob, and abduct a person, but only if he or she attacks you first, or is clearly about to, and such actions are necessary for restraining him or her so that he/she cannot continue to perpetrate violence.

But according to U.S. codes, it is a "crime" to use whatever plants a certain group of people in a particular building in a particular city have declared that it is a crime to use. And if they see you using one of the plants that they don't like, they've actually granted themselves authority to break the law against non-defensive violence, and initiate violence against a peaceful person.

Think about that. Believing in "legislation" is tantamount to saying that you can do anything you want, to anyone, and commit all manner of savagery, as long as you vote on it first.

Another example: abortion. Many folks have been led to believe that their attainment of majority consensus allows them to void the validity of the life of an unborn child. And if you follow that logic, then there is nothing stopping them from voiding the life of a born child - or the life of any person at all, for that matter. Nothing except consensus. If 51% of the country agrees to re-enslave black people, then that would presumably be ok, at least by the reasoning of democracy.

But according to Natural Law, slavery and non-defensive violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, and there is nothing anybody can do to change that - no matter how much voting takes place, no matter how well-ironed their neckties or well-pressed their uniforms.

In summary...
1. There is one set of rules.
2. It's for everybody.
3. It existed before the dawn of humanity.
4. No one is exempt from it.
5. No one can exempt another person from it.
6. No system of government can (legitimately) override it.

We can discuss the contents of the law later. But first, do we agree that it exists?

Now that we've had that little primer.... what do you think?

Do you agree that Natural Law exists?

[Sombro]

are you high

[Phoenix]

Yeah I'm very big on the natural law concept.

Natural law is basically 'the law of keeping the peace', which is an objective law, discovered from experience and interpolation. This is why I like the common law style of jurisprudence, and the idea that 'if it couldn't be a tort, it shouldn't be a crime'.

Statutes aren't strictly law, they're actually just one group's expression of their demands on another. It's only taken into consideration to the extent that group can enforce it.

[Truth Teller]

Yes, natural law, like teleology, is immanent in nature. Aquinas' discussion of this in both the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles is rather convincing.

Morality is not something we create and then impose upon the real world. Morality exists outside of us, yet is part of who and what we are.

[storm]

Please provide a test through which we can tell if a law is a "natural law" or not.

No test, doesn't exist.

End of story.

[Pontifex Maximus]

From my brief life experience, natural law doesn't exist. The only constants in nature are competition and randomness.

Law is simply a conversion rate between wealth/resources and social behavior. Having greater wealth allows a greater margin of error until the law doles out the punishment, such as dodging wartime conscription, paying bail/fines or bribing the judiciary. With or without constraint of the law, individuals tend to make almost perfectly-rational decisions, occasionally skewed by emotion, family obligations, charity, etc.

For example, German historian Karl Wittfogel coins the term "Oriental despotism" as a result of "Hydraulic Civilzations". Why was Europe so fragmented in comparison to the stable Indian and Chinese civilizations? Because Chinese/Indian civilization sparked along the Yangtze/Ganges rivers, where cooperative irrigation was required for survival. So the Chinese/Indian families sent their eldest sons to dig ditches, accepting their despotic state in exchange for a higher chance of crop surpluses and water access. The richest European settlements all shared the Mediterranean pond (Carthage, Syracuse, Athens, Alexandria, Anatolia, etc), so they had the geographic luck to not have to engage in "Hydraulic civilizations". Therefore, the price of resources/wealth Europeans had to pay to engage in some "unfriendly social behaviors" was less. Galileo's head was fortunate to have been spouting blasphemy in Italy, not China. But Europe spawned Christianity, the Renaissance, Archimedes, Epicurus, Aristotle... all the creative stuff. If you ask indigenous tribesmen today in Papua New Guinea or South America, those untouched by modernity, they likely won't condemn murder and rape. There is no natural law; all human behavior is a fairly rational decision based on geographical luck/resources and behavior, and the law is the conversion rate between the two.

Although outdated, I would say Anacyclosis (Polybius) does a pretty decent job predicting trend of human behavior.

[Phoenix]

(07-31-2015 12:51 AM)storm Wrote:  

Please provide a test through which we can tell if a law is a "natural law" or not.

No test, doesn't exist.

End of story.

Test is as follows:
Go to 'lawless' country. Walk out to the street with a knife, and stab someone to death. Then count how long it takes until you get lynched or the victim's relatives shoot you. If it's less than 6 months, you can be fairly confident your death wasn't random.

[vinman]

Strangely enough I was just watching this video of Judge Napolitano give a lecture on this very subject. I'm a huge fan of the judge, because he seems to go out of his way to always convince people to err on the side of individual rights.

[Truth Teller]

(07-31-2015 12:51 AM)storm Wrote:  

Please provide a test through which we can tell if a law is a "natural law" or not.

No test, doesn't exist.

End of story.

Nonsense. Can you test your statement "no test, doesn't exist?" No, you can't. Logical positivism is self-refuting.

[Sooth]

(07-30-2015 11:40 PM)thegreenman Wrote:  

Monarchy: Murder is wrong because the king made a law saying so.
Republicanism: Murder is wrong because the people's elected representatives made a law saying so.
Democracy: Murder is wrong because the people have arrived at a consensus that it is so.

Natural Law: Murder is wrong because it just is, and any individual with a functioning brain can figure that out on his own.

You're missing something that ties this all together for a very large number of people on earth. You may have planned to bring this up.

A transcendental law giver.

If indeed we are created by God in His image, then we are to do our best to adhere to that image lest we lie about who God is.

If this is the case, stealing someone car isn't wrong because it inconveniences a family of 4. Stealing would be wrong because God isn't a thief.

Cheating resulting in a marriage implosion isn't wrong because it hurts peoples feelings and wrecks the lives of children. It would be wrong because God is ultimately faithful.

This way of looking at the law is based on who God is and since God is supernatural, there is no clash with the summary you provided.

It's not a popular opinion because nobody goes looking for the police man.

[Sonsowey]

I would say there is no such thing as Natural Law.

There is nothing in this world besides "Might Makes Right".

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

[PapayaTapper]

(07-30-2015 11:40 PM)thegreenman Wrote:  

***

Natural Law can best be described as the notion that law is preexisting, rather than "made" by humans.

There exists a set of principles for how people (or any sentient life) should conduct themselves in relation to other sentient life, and that these principles existed before sentient life developed, and that, as it developed, it inherited an already-existing system of morality.

People cannot make law; but what we can do is discover and describe what is already there.

The whole thesis is flawed. "Laws" by definition are man made. Without an IN DEPTH definition of laws this will quickly turn into an exercise in semantics

[Sonsowey]

To hear any liberal tell it Gay Marriage is a "Human Right", ie part of "Natural Law"

No one ever knew this throughout the entire history of humanity until about 12 years ago.

Of course modern day liberals are able to "discover what was already there" where the rest of humanity could not.

God bless their hearts.

[thegreenman]

Replies:

Pontifex Maximus: The subject you brought up has more to do with what "happens" than with what "ought to happen", which is the subject of law and morality. Great insight though. A very valid point about what made civilizations different.

Sooth: That's a fascinating insight. Morality comes from whatever type of behavior God would do. But why wouldn't God steal? Perhaps because he doesn't want to inconvenience the family.

Conscientiousness for the results of one's actions upon others has got to factor in somehow. Perhaps God is the ultimate conscientious one, and that's why emulating him is good.

Sonsowey: The notion that "might makes right"... you can't REALLY believe that. Lemme ask you a simple question:

"Would you want to live in a world where everyone followed your philosophy?"

A world in which there was no intrinsic sense of moral guidance, and where everyone took your saying to heart?

I think if you found yourself in such a world, you'd want out quickly.

And about the gay marriage thing...

The people who are the loudest supporters of gay marriage are probably not natural law enthusiasts. Have you ever asked one? Most of them would choose option 3 in this poll - that natural law is for crazy survivalists on compounds in Montana. Gay marriage comes from democracy, not natural law.

[thegreenman]

Also, anyone who thinks that un-modernized tribes don't have morality, and don't have a problem with murder and rape, has never been to an area with un-modernized tribes...

I personally spent most of the past year in Asia, in an area with large numbers of unmodernized tribes, including the Yi, Bai, Nu, Akha, and a couple dozen others. Their sense of morality and social cohesion is probably the most intact in the world at this point.

[Sonsowey]

Greenman,

Create a thread on this. I think everyone here would love to hear your experiences in this regard, it sounds fascinating.

[cascadecombo]

(07-31-2015 08:05 PM)thegreenman Wrote:  

Sonsowey: The notion that "might makes right"... you can't REALLY believe that. Lemme ask you a simple question:

"Would you want to live in a world where everyone followed your philosophy?"

A world in which there was no intrinsic sense of moral guidance, and where everyone took your saying to heart?

I think if you found yourself in such a world, you'd want out quickly.

And about the gay marriage thing...

The people who are the loudest supporters of gay marriage are probably not natural law enthusiasts. Have you ever asked one? Most of them would choose option 3 in this poll - that natural law is for crazy survivalists on compounds in Montana. Gay marriage comes from democracy, not natural law.

I think you're taking what he said a bit out of context.

The strong usually do as they please, but the people in positions of power and had an understanding of how to build up their society knew to care for those below them.

In the most basic sense I get what you mean, if someone didn't like you for whatever reason they could demolish you and your life simply because they are stronger. But isn't that something close to how our world is now.

We have people vying for power, the SJW's had a taste of power and continued to claw for more power, eventually public shaming wasn't enough they wanted people fired and their lives ruined. Power is no longer simply physical strength, the people who can manipulate public perception have found that they posses strength as well. And they abuse it until someone with more power comes along and sees their folley and corrects it.

[Enigma]

(07-31-2015 01:04 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 12:51 AM)storm Wrote:  

Please provide a test through which we can tell if a law is a "natural law" or not.

No test, doesn't exist.

End of story.

Test is as follows:
Go to 'lawless' country. Walk out to the street with a knife, and stab someone to death. Then count how long it takes until you get lynched or the victim's relatives shoot you. If it's less than 6 months, you can be fairly confident your death wasn't random.

By this logic, murder is fine as long as no one sees you do it.

[Phoenix]

^ Isn't that always the case?
Morals follow natural law, but aren't rigidly pinned to them. For the 'bad man', he still has to factor in the anxiety and risk of the crime eventually being traced back to him due to an overlooked mistake.

[thedarkknight]

(07-31-2015 06:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

I would say there is no such thing as Natural Law.

There is nothing in this world besides "Might Makes Right".

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

I hate to say this but I think you're right. Shit world, man.

[thedarkknight]

(07-30-2015 11:40 PM)thegreenman Wrote:  

Everybody can clearly see that America is having a crisis.

And it seems to be a crisis about the very nature of law, and what it means to be law-abiding. As long as these police-violence videos keep coming out (and they will), the people will rapidly lose confidence in the basic soundness and validity of the system known as "law and government."

We're heading for a point where we'll have to discuss the very foundation of law, including what it's made of, how it's constructed, and where it comes from.

I would like to contribute to this discussion by offering up a primer on Natural Law.

***

Natural Law can best be described as the notion that law is preexisting, rather than "made" by humans.

There exists a set of principles for how people (or any sentient life) should conduct themselves in relation to other sentient life, and that these principles existed before sentient life developed, and that, as it developed, it inherited an already-existing system of morality.

People cannot make law; but what we can do is discover and describe what is already there.

Let's use an example of, say... murder. Here's how several different systems interpret it:

Monarchy: Murder is wrong because the king made a law saying so.
Republicanism: Murder is wrong because the people's elected representatives made a law saying so.
Democracy: Murder is wrong because the people have arrived at a consensus that it is so.

Natural Law: Murder is wrong because it just is, and any individual with a functioning brain can figure that out on his own.

All people are endowed with a built-in moral compass that tells them what is right and wrong. Some believe that there may be a tiny fraction of people (perhaps 1-2%) who, for some as-yet-enigmatic reason, are devoid of this, whom we call "sociopaths", but they are a tiny minority. The standard model of a human comes with the internal moral navigation system.

It's definitely possible to [b]distract a person from accessing his navigation system, and to [b]distort it through propaganda and social conditioning.[/b][/b] But the system still remains, and if the person is able to quiet his mind and momentarily step outside of the conditioned part of it (such as perhaps through meditation), he can regain access to the system, and once again read what it says, and apply it to whatever situation its wisdom is needed for.

Law and morality are preexisting, intrinsic, and eternal. They are not made by humans, and thus cannot be unmade by us either.

Let's use another example: the utilization of psychoactive plants.

According to Natural Law, it is a crime to initiate violence against another person, except in defense. You can assault, batter, rob, and abduct a person, but only if he or she attacks you first, or is clearly about to, and such actions are necessary for restraining him or her so that he/she cannot continue to perpetrate violence.

But according to U.S. codes, it is a "crime" to use whatever plants a certain group of people in a particular building in a particular city have declared that it is a crime to use. And if they see you using one of the plants that they don't like, they've actually granted themselves authority to break the law against non-defensive violence, and initiate violence against a peaceful person.

Think about that. Believing in "legislation" is tantamount to saying that you can do anything you want, to anyone, and commit all manner of savagery, as long as you vote on it first.

Another example: abortion. Many folks have been led to believe that their attainment of majority consensus allows them to void the validity of the life of an unborn child. And if you follow that logic, then there is nothing stopping them from voiding the life of a born child - or the life of any person at all, for that matter. Nothing except consensus. If 51% of the country agrees to re-enslave black people, then that would presumably be ok, at least by the reasoning of democracy.

But according to Natural Law, slavery and non-defensive violence are wrong, wrong, wrong, and there is nothing anybody can do to change that - no matter how much voting takes place, no matter how well-ironed their neckties or well-pressed their uniforms.

In summary...
1. There is one set of rules.
2. It's for everybody.
3. It existed before the dawn of humanity.
4. No one is exempt from it.
5. No one can exempt another person from it.
6. No system of government can (legitimately) override it.

We can discuss the contents of the law later. But first, do we agree that it exists?

Now that we've had that little primer.... what do you think?

Do you agree that Natural Law exists?

That bit in red, bolded and highlighted is what struck me most. From religious extremism, cults and political movements, they all help to drown out people's own moral compass.

[Phoenix]

On 'might is right':
Kind of, natural law ends where violence begins. Breaking the peace can be done as long as your group has the power to put down retaliation from the counter-group. Eventually you either push too far, and or your power droops just enough, then another group displaces you. Such is the cycle of tyrannies and revolutions.

This is why constitution is everything. The core of maintaining peace and natural law is a constitution that restrains the ability of factions to dominate each other. Unfortunately it always seems to be a case of teetering on the top of the hill. The better the constitution, the flatter the top of the hill, but you'll never have a constitution that makes a valley.

[Enigma]

(08-01-2015 12:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

^ Isn't that always the case?

Murder is always against the law, whether it is seen or not.

Just because you are not caught and punished doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

[Beyond Borders]

(08-01-2015 03:30 AM)thedarkknight Wrote:  

(07-31-2015 06:13 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

I would say there is no such thing as Natural Law.

There is nothing in this world besides "Might Makes Right".

"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

I hate to say this but I think you're right. Shit world, man.

lol

So says "thedarknight."

Here's something for you to chew on: Your illusions make your reality.

[Phoenix]

(08-01-2015 04:45 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

(08-01-2015 12:22 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

^ Isn't that always the case?

Murder is always against the law, whether it is seen or not.

Just because you are not caught and punished doesn't mean you didn't break the law.

That applies to both natural law and positive law. Observed law of 'keeping the peace' and law decreed by a wise and benevolent king should be the same, only the enforcement differs.