Objective Demonstration Thread

[Pure]

one question, shang, is whether 'unpleasant' consequences are allowed as part of the rationalist argument.

to take the issue of 'low productivity', this was apparently not something that most humans minded for some eons, perhaps up to the advent of capitalism.

and even now, some people take a 'vow of poverty,' so maybe one person or a whole society being 'poor' (not many goods produced) is not a valid 'rational' consideration.

a second question concerns the scope of the murder allowance. why restrict consideration to a) total ban, or b) free for all, bloody conflict. how about: the extremely well-to-do kill, when convenient, any poor person who represents some impediment or hindrance--gets in the way of the carriage-- and whose relatives are few and weak.
===

here's an interesting little piece on 'love and murder among the chimps'

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DE1F39F930A25750C0A96E948260

 

[amicus]

Oblimo]Oh, and I can't believe I let this slip by...



You mean how Kepler was a numerologist obsessed with the occult powers of sacred geometry and all around wacko?



Heck, no. Epicycles worked just fine, especially Tycho Brahe's model, which put Earth at the center of the universe, the Sun and Moon orbiting the Earth, and the other planets and the stars orbiting around the Sun. In fact, Brahe's Earth-centric model was better at accounting for the recorded observations than Kepler's (the heliocentrist model had to wait for another numerologist occulist wacko, Isaac Newton, to invent the calculus before it finally beat Brahe's numbers.*)

*Which, honestly, always made me a little suspicious. The observations that Brahe's model were better at reporting were Brahe's own observations--Brahe being the best naked eye astronomer and computer in history and all. Never understood why Kuhn didn't harp on that.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~

Oblimo...I think I clicked 'quote' on the wrong post of yours, I wanted the one in which you asked the rhetorical question (paraphrase) "...does that mean I am supposed to feel bad about studying modal calculus in college?..."

No, not feel bad, Oblimo, but perhaps comprehend the concept 'humility', although many will immediately spout, 'concept of humility from Amicus!?, gimme a break!"

A very tiny percent of the worlds population even has a chance to or the luxury to spend time at University. Of those who do, those who are intellectually capable of grasping the principles of higher mathematics is almost infinitesimal. It was said upon the publication of Einstein's theory of Relativity, that perhaps only seven minds in the entire world were capable of understanding that theory.

And although I am far removed from those giddy days of mental and intellectual discovery and stimulation, of almost sexual intensity, when one begins to become aware of that long thing thread of human intellectual endeavor in all fields, suddenly displays a similarity of methodology and procedure.

Nor do I necessarily fault your youthful exhuberance is displaying your intellectual facilities, it is rather a thing of youth that you will eventually mature beyond.

In that long and arduous quest for knowledge, if you truly read, or was that Pure, the 'Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology', you will recall that as wider concepts and abstractions are comprehended, the axiomatic 'truths' discovered at one level must be transferred with integrityand non contradiction to the next level and so on, so as to maintain the ethical logical base one builds upon.

That process is neverending if one keeps the mind active and always pursuing knowledge.

What I was referring to in my aside and reply to someones comments about the concentric circular path the planets were predicted to make, was, when the telescopic arena widened and became more accessible, the 'perturbations' of certain planet were inexplicable by the concentric rings theory.

I have always found that I learn better when I try to fanticize just how Kepler or Brahe might have started their evenings observations, the actual model of the equipment they used, the candle light, or whale oil lanterns, the cold stone settings of their telescopes, the quill and ink means by which they had to record their data and the general ignorance and faith of the secular world they lived in.

Noting, as they did, that observable planetary movement did not place a planet where it should be on a journey defined by a concentric circle; rather, the orbit was elliptical...why?

It reminds me of Einstein's mathematical prediction that 'light' had mass and would be 'bent' when passing a strong gravitational field. Few if any even understood, few if any agreed. It took a good many years of more sophisticated technology to confirm his prediction.


'Learning..' said Aristotle, 'is of all the pleasures of mankind, the highest and best...' I paraphrase...

It is going on years now, that I have had a running battle with Pure and others who only criticize man's progress and tear apart the reason and logic by which we have risen beyond the caves. An intellectual pursuit carrys with it an obligation to truth and even more, an obligation of honesty with one's peers and with those who depend upon those select few to guide us into the future.

Quite like the many 'respected' contemporary scientists who have lent their skills to a campaign of political propaganda, aka, 'Global Warming', they do a disservice to their profession and to mankind in general, by allowing their expertise to become corrupted by political or religious agendas.

amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

one question, shang, is whether 'unpleasant' consequences are allowed as part of the rationalist argument.

As I understand the sort of hard-core Utilitarian viewpoint, this is resolved numerically/quantitatively. The action that generates the greatest good for the greatest number is the right choice. Of course personally, I feel that humans are extremely weak at (1) identifying all of the ramifications of their actions and (2) valuing good done to distant others at the same rate that they value good done to their immediate selves. There's a sort of optimistic assumption here that science and rational investigation will overcome complexity and self-interest. I don't think historically that it has, but that's the theory - and in that case, some unpleasant consequences are allowable if overall, the greatest good is done (with the unpleasantness subtracted).

to take the issue of 'low productivity', this was apparently not something that most humans minded for some eons, perhaps up to the advent of capitalism.

I have to disagree with you there. There a major changes in social values and moral ideologies that seem to have arisen in conjunction with technological/economic changes well before the industrial revolution. If you compare the values you find in an Anglo-Saxon warrior culture like that depicted in Beowulf, for instance, with the values of a later English medieval culture, there's a big shift from individual prowess to upholding a ruling class and from braggadocio and physical power to loyalty and gentility. If you look at how each culture produced its basic goods, this makes sense. A herding/fishing tribally organized culture could make big gains by raiding other people and grabbing their portable goods; there was no great loss of goods involved, just redistribution. But once you're raising most of your food in the form of grain, that starts to change. For most of the year, you can't steal grain without destroying it. You can only steal what's already been harvested, and if you lay waste to the countryside and peasants, you destroy the source of the spoils. I don't think it's surprising that people's ideas of what was right in a king or leader shifted to reflect that. They did desire stability and productivity; they just had a different standard of productivity than an industrialized society. In that case, they wanted a stable political/social structure because it allowed them to produce food more effectively.

and even now, some people take a 'vow of poverty,' so maybe one person or a whole society being 'poor' (not many goods produced) is not a valid 'rational' consideration.

My gut instinct is that there, they'd go back to greatest good for greatest number. Few people choose to be poor - pretty much a statistically insignificant number - and those who do so would not be harmed by the presence of goods. They'd still have the option to be poor. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority would be happier with more goods.

a second question concerns the scope of the murder allowance. why restrict consideration to a) total ban, or b) free for all, bloody conflict. how about: the extremely well-to-do kill, when convenient, any poor person who represents some impediment or hindrance--gets in the way of the carriage-- and whose relatives are few and weak.

Well, there are all sorts of answers to that one, because the devil really is in the details. I think that many people or societies go for the total ban in "slippery slope" grounds; once you decide anyone can be killed, it's all a matter of producing a good argument that this or that specific individual is disposable. I think you could actually construct a decent rationalist argument for that idea that that process itself - constant questioning, lobbying, and anxiety about who will or will not die - is destructive and leads to a lot of the same problems that a general open season would. Of course, some societies have deemed various groups of people disposable and thought themselves rational in it. Personally, I still go back to issue of assumptions; to me, none of this is morality, only descriptions of what might make a relatively practical way to live.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

Objective Demonstration Thread

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread is for objective demonstrations in the area of morality.

~~~~~~~~~~

Thread started by Pure...and has wandered in many directions...


I observe the 'shotgun effect' used by Pure, once again, divide and conquer, obfuscate and confuse, tickle and tease, must be some pleasure in that.

Reading through this thread and others, I begin to wonder if Pure's attack methods may not occasionally do just the opposite? I.E. rather than be skeptical and question everything, the proliferation of information and differing viewpoints, practical theoretical, actually give a better impetus to a more 'objective' search for continuity through both time and subject.

Once upon a time in radioland, (I even had two secretaries) we kept track of every proposed law and bill in the Congress of the United States of America for an entire congressional session. There were thousands and the politicians dutifully sent the radio station copy upon copy of bills and amendments...more thousands.

I made the same journey some years later in a State legislature, for an entire session, all the bills that were introduced in both houses and the amendments and joint versions.

I bring to your attention also an old television series, 'Paper Chase', about a student going through law school, 'contract law' was a main issue as I recall.

Then too, should any have had the opportunity to look upon the walls and walls loaded with 'lawbooks' in the office of your attorney of choice, hundreds of them and state and federal laws, revised and updated and amended...


Some one posted a brief glimpse of the history of laws, going back as far as it is possible to search the written or 'carved in stone' edicts of our ancestors.

'Thou shalt not Kill' goes back a long long way and implies the value of 'individual' human life and the laws enacted and enforced to protect such, 'life' however you define it.

In Pure's effort to shrug aside the entire history of mankind struggling to define ethical and moral actions as they concern human life, what Pure has inadvertently done is to emphasize the long history of those rational attempts to protect and preserve the rights of the individual possessing that life.

I has not been a clean and easy process as even a cursory review of a few lawbooks and histories will demonstrate.

The history of law has evolved and continues to expand and mankind seeks a greater understanding of human life, rights, privileges and freedoms. Not even to mention 'property rights'.

In such a vast and long endeavor, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a boiling down to basics process has long been working.

Pure goes back and makes it a philosophical question, the ethics and morality of taking an innocent human life and would have us believe that the question has not been well worked for centuries.

Simply because Pure has no respect for individual human life and 'believes' there is no innate, absolute, moral axiom concerning the primacy of 'life' itself, is not cause nor reason for those such as Shang to question their own concepts of life and death, or even societal means of protecting and preserving or taking and controlling human life.

This is, of course, all about the abortion issue although no one has balls enough to declaim that the emporer has no clothes...Pure is just hawking his wares looking for buyers...



amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

Edit to add - Nevermind

 

[Pure]

a note of clarification:

Hi Shang
Pure said, //one question, shang, is whether 'unpleasant' consequences are allowed as part of the rationalist argument. //



BS As I understand the sort of hard-core Utilitarian viewpoint, this is resolved numerically/quantitatively.

P: Keep in mind that utilitarian considerations are not at the core of this argument. They play a subordinate position. The key considerations are 1) the nature of Man; 2) the nature of his primary institutions [which need to conform to the laws of nature; and 3) the question of how a given type of act comports with 1) and 2), in rational terms.

For example, consider this excerpt from Humanae Vitae; it is the teaching on "artificial conception"; note the character of the main argument as it runs from article 7 to article 14. It is at article 17 the Pope brings in consequences.
(I reproduce almost in full, with one deletion marked.) It's to be noted that despite certain appeals to the Bible or previous Popes, the argument stands on its own, having sufficient ground in 'natural law.'

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...ts/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

[sections on basic principles and contraception]

II. DOCTRINAL PRINCIPLES

7. The question of human procreation, like every other question which touches human life, involves more than the limited aspects specific to such disciplines as biology, psychology, demography or sociology. It is the whole man and the whole mission to which he is called that must be considered: both its natural, earthly aspects and its supernatural, eternal aspects. And since in the attempt to justify artificial methods of birth control many appeal to the demands of married love or of responsible parenthood, these two important realities of married life must be accurately defined and analyzed. This is what We mean to do, with special reference to what the Second Vatican Council taught with the highest authority in its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the World of Today.
God's Loving Design

8. Married love particularly reveals its true nature and nobility when we realize that it takes its origin from God, who "is love," (6) the Father "from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named." (7)

Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.

The marriage of those who have been baptized is, in addition, invested with the dignity of a sacramental sign of grace, for it represents the union of Christ and His Church.

Married Love
9. In the light of these facts the characteristic features and exigencies of married love are clearly indicated, and it is of the highest importance to evaluate them exactly.

This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.

Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.

Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare." (8)

Responsible Parenthood
10. Married love, therefore, requires of husband and wife the full awareness of their obligations in the matter of responsible parenthood, which today, rightly enough, is much insisted upon, but which at the same time should be rightly understood. Thus, we do well to consider responsible parenthood in the light of its varied legitimate and interrelated aspects.

With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. (9)
With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them.

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out. (10)

Observing the Natural Law
11. The sexual activity, in which husband and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' (11) It does not, moreover, cease to be legitimate even when, for reasons independent of their will, it is foreseen to be infertile. For its natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife is not thereby suppressed.

The fact is, as experience shows, that new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse. God has wisely ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life. (12)

Union and Procreation
12. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
Faithfulness to God's Design

13. Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.

Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and His holy will. But to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source. "Human life is sacred—all men must recognize that fact," Our predecessor Pope John XXIII recalled. "From its very inception it reveals the creating hand of God." (13)

Unlawful Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) […] [part of article 14 deleted; articles 15 and 16 deleted]


Consequences of Artificial Methods
17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.

 

[Pure]

note to ami,

i'm sorry you've become disgruntled. the problem is that, although Rand and her folks are largely unaware of [or ignore] philosophy, much has been written on the topics. also there are the scientific writings in zoology, biology, anthropology, and so on, which are largely ignored.

one of the most common examples of 'murder', i.e., unprovoked killing within a species is toward 'step-infants'-- the young of the female who suddenly has a new mate (the old mate having been killed, or run off, or whatever).

a prominent researcher on chimps was summarized as follows by one reviewer

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DE1F39F930A25750C0A96E948260



Mr. Ghiglieri's [primatologist and researcher; author of the book] remarkable accomplishment was to live in the Kibale rain forest in the Uganda made dangerous by Idi Amin in order to observe chimpanzees, without luring them with food or constraining them with wire. He wanted to see how social groups interacted with one another, with their food supply, with other species and with homo sapiens, their nemesis. His living conditions were atrocious, his financial support negligible, the return of facts often dauntingly small for long and difficult hours of peering through thick foliage for a useful sight of his scientific trophy. [...]

Rain forest chimp society is evidently marked by general social preferences of males for males, females for females. Females secure food more easily if they don't have to compete with larger males. In turn, this cooperative segregation can form the basis for deadly intra-male struggle between groups when access to territorial resources and to females is in question. Other targets of male chimp murder are the suckling infants of females taken forcibly under control by a new male. The females quickly stop lactating, begin ovulating and are now able to bear the infants of the usurper male. This pattern is not restricted to chimpanzees and has been observed among other species. Even human stepfathers, it has been claimed, are more likely than biological fathers to abuse small children.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Pure -

Sorry if the Utilitarian position was a side-path. I think we're probably defining "rationalist" differently. I've been interpreting it to mean "relying only on reason and denying other sources of authority"; it seems to me now that you mean more like "building logically from central premises?"

I'm having trouble with the applicability of the quotation from the Vatican. I can't really agree with you that the references to God and the Bible are tangential. It appears to me that they are the basis of the argument, and that the frequent returns to them indicate that this is not really an argument based on natural law. It seems to me to be an argument that draws upon divine authority, as its chain of reasoning keeps leading back to actions being forbidden if they violate the law laid down by God and the church. Yes, it touches on the idea of natural law in point 11, but then it connects that back again to divine will as the chief authority:

This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

I read this not as saying simply "it should be this way because it is this way in a state of nature," but "the workings of nature in this case indicate the path of the Divine will." Certainly there are any number of other things that occur in nature - homosexual intercourse springs readily to mind - that the church has chosen not to support because they feel that God's law differs from nature in that area. I'd argue that in this excerpt, they're touching on natural law as a manifestation of divine intent - leaving their argument still rooted in the divine and not in the material/natural world.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Natural Law and Reason

Hi Shang,
I probably spoke a bit imprecisely in my two sentence summary of the Pope's position. Nature and Natural Law are from God, of course, and reflect his goodness. Conformity to natural law is the way in which we partake of God's providence in achieving the goods he intends for us. [The first author below, goes over this point, in a part I have not quoted.]

However, human reason can find 'natural law', and can find solid reasons for following it, with being bound to reliance on revelation (Bible or Church teachings).

I didn't intend to imply that the above points about God were 'tangential' (your term), merely that an approach based on natural law is NOT necessarily bound to depend on revelation, to reach its conclusions.

BSI think we're probably defining "rationalist" differently. I've been interpreting it to mean "relying only on reason and denying other sources of authority"; it seems to me now that you mean more like "building logically from central premises?"

P: No, I mean something closer to the first, as suggested in the pieces below. An "objective" morals is held to be derivative of and recognizable by human reason. Its principles, as the author states in the first quote, are fundamental to the rationality and reasonableness of human action.

I would not say "denying other sources of authority," however. What I'm trying to do is link Aristotle, the Stoics, St. Thomas in an 'objectivity of morals' theme. So it is sufficient for my purposes that St Thomas believes reason is capable of leading one to the objective principles of morality. I don't need to get deeply into what is, for him, another source of authority (for the same principles), namely God, the Bible, the Church, etc. This approach of mine reflects St. Pauls remarks [affirmed by Aquinas, of course] that non- Xtians have natures that let them know about what's right.

In any case, this thread should not get bogged down in exegesis of Thomas. I want to look at a number of 'objective' persons, and what they have in common. Interestingly the British moralist, Philippa Foot is one who argues for 'naturalist' ethics, but without invoking God in the argument.














Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
[first there is a discussion of natural law in relation to its giver, which entails its relation to divine providence]

When we focus on the recipient of the natural law, that is, us human beings, the thesis of Aquinas's natural law theory that comes to the fore is that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality for human beings, and has this status by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6).

The precepts of the natural law are binding by nature: no beings could share our human nature yet fail to be bound by the precepts of the natural law. This is so because these precepts direct us toward the good as such and various particular goods (ST IaIIae 94, 2). The good and goods provide reasons for us rational beings to act, to pursue the good and these particular goods. As good is what is perfective of us given the natures that we have (ST Ia 5, 1), the good and these various goods have their status as such naturally. It is sufficient for certain things to be good that we have the natures that we have; it is in virtue of our common human nature that the good for us is what it is.

The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice. Aquinas takes it that there is a core of practical knowledge that all human beings have


Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

1. Two Kinds of Natural Law Theory
At the outset, it is important to distinguish two kinds of theory [moral and legal] that go by the name of natural law. The first is a theory of morality that is roughly characterized by the following theses. First, moral propositions have what is sometimes called objective standing in the sense that such propositions are the bearers of objective truth-value; that is, moral propositions can be objectively true or false. […]

The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").

 

[Pure]

Remark on Nature and sexuality.

from humanue vitae
//This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. //

BS I read this not as saying simply "it should be this way because it is this way in a state of nature," but "the workings of nature in this case indicate the path of the Divine will." Certainly there are any number of other things that occur in nature - homosexual intercourse springs readily to mind - that the church has chosen not to support because they feel that God's law differs from nature in that area. I'd argue that in this excerpt, they're touching on natural law as a manifestation of divine intent - leaving their argument still rooted in the divine and not in the material/natural world.

P: Again, I don't want to get bogged in exegesis of this encyclical. But let me follow up on the previous position I stated, with regard to the specific issue of sexuality.

I agree that one doesn't find the 'natural law' of morality by surveying actions. These would include not merely homosexual acts, but murderous ones, etc. It is in this sense that Aristotle, the Stoics, Aquinas, and the Pope, "followed" by Rand, reject a simple empirical approach. With some convincingness, the argument is that you don't come up with moral principles by looking at everything both good and nasty that is; no do you count frequencies to find the 'norm' of behavior. In finding, say, that a majority of men break their marriage vows, one doesn't arrive at supporting evidence for 'adultery is moral.'

I call this "rationalism" as opposed to empiricism. Nature is to be understood according to its basic principles, which flow from its connection to Reason, of which humans partake. (And hence humans can and should conform themselves to Nature.)

Here is where we may differ, Shang. As I read you, you believe that these Catholic thinkers invoke "God's Law", e.g., Leviticus and its prohibition of sodomy, to pick out parts of nature that they don't want us to follow. AND those parts couldn't otherwise be identified. I think that doesn't do Aquinas justice, though it might fit an evangelical or fundamentalist approach.

It is, of course true, that there is a "Word of God" in the Bible regarding homosexuality and 'onanism' [somehow related to masturbation]. But I think Aquinas wants all his basic moral principles to be discernable to human reason.

An objectivist in morals might note that a number of NON Xtians oppose homosexuality and masturbation [e.g. muslims], and "uses" of sex for pleasure/recreation as opposed to procreation. The conclusion does not--it is said--depend on Xtian revelations.

I suppose the argument is--if I may propose it-- that Reason lets us know 1) that sex is for procreation, and 2) for helping 'bond' procreating [married] pairs [as is affirmed in humanae vitae, intercourse by married folks which occurs in infertile times is not forbidden]. This is the official RCC position, and 1) and 2) are affirmed by Baptists, as well.

 

[Pure]

Natural rights--their scope.

duplicate deleted

 

[Pure]

Natural rights--their scope.

The moral theory of 'natural law' is a brother to the theory of natural rights, for if someone has a 'natural right' to something, it's going to be wrong to take that away; conversely, if it's wrong for anyone to take away a given person person's privilege [e.g., life], then that person in fact has a de facto (natural) 'right to life'.

Locke famously asserted that the Creator had given us the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Rand's objectivists concur [substituting Nature for God].

Unfortunately there is no evidence the "Creator" or "Nature" gives or supports such rights.

Are there ANY? Maybe, but with Hobbes, I'm inclined to say there are only two: to do what you want, and to defend yourself. The 'rights' that Locke and others have in mind (to life, for instance) are the rules set down by the Sovereign, e.g. a King who has, by a social compact, been given absolute power.

What do you see when you look at Nature: A Hobbesian 'war of all against all' (say, a bunch of solitary predators, like tigers) or a peaceful entity, like a beehive (an organized bunch of bees). Or something in between, as reported by the chimp zoologist I have posted a couple days ago (packs who, between each other are amoral and ready to kill, but who have some peace amongst themselves).

Here's how on prof summarized Hobbes.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/ebarnes/242/242-sup-hobbes.htm

Notes by E. Barnes, for Phil 242

2) State of nature: Hobbes claims that the state of nature is a really really very very bad place to be. He famously characterized life in such a state in this way:

During the time that men live without a common power...they are in a condition which is called war; and such a war...is of every man against every man. (Hobbes, Leviathan)

He further states that in such a war,

...the life of man [would be] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Hobbes, Leviathan)

He envisioned a situation where no one would be at all secure, and that no real culture could develop because of constant violence between people. In short, this would be the worst possible way to live - a constant living hell.

3) Social contract: The only way to avoid such a state is to make a social contract which gives a sovereign (king or governing body) the power to pass and enforce laws, and the power to enforce the contracts that people make between each other so that there can be trust in such contracts.

The power of the sovereign must be strong enough to enforce the law with respect to anyone - even the most powerful citizen, and even any possible coalition of citizens that might be formed (like the KKK or the mafia) - otherwise the sovereign would not be able to prevent the society from slipping back into a state of nature in the possible conflict between the sovereign and the other powerful group. Hobbes argues that the only way this can be accomplished is by giving total and absolute authority to the sovereign, anything less than that would risk regression into the state of nature, and it is worth anything to avoid that risk.

4) Rights
a) What are our natural rights?: Everyone in the state of nature has the right to anything that they take to be beneficial to them. For example, if we were in the state of nature and I thought that your car would be beneficial to me (though not necessarily more so than it is to you), then I would have the right to take it. Of course, you would have the right to defend your possession of the car by any means necessary. I have the right to take it by force, and you have the right to defend it by force.

We both have these rights naturally - they are our natural rights. According to Hobbes, we have a natural right to do absolutely anything that we believe will benefit us. Hobbes puts it this way:

The right of nature...is the liberty each man has, to use his own power...for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything, which in his own judgment, and reason, he shall conceive to be the [best] means [thereto]. (Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter 14)

Natural rights are the rights that we have in the state of nature. We don't have these rights in civilized society.

b) What are our societal rights?: When people entered into a social contract, they gave up almost all natural rights in exchange for the security offered by the sovereign. In other words, the citizens have given up their rights to take what they want by force, and agreed to abide by the rules of the sovereign. The citizens will have certain legal rights in the civil society - these will be whatever rights that the sovereign decides that she wants to grant to the people.

Hobbes claims that the sovereign is not obligated to ensure any particular legal rights of the citizens - all she has to do is to maintain some degree of civil order, so that it is not a state of nature. So, the sovereign has the right to pass any laws at all according to the social contract. However, Hobbes does indicate that it is likely that the sovereign will attempt to maintain a good society with reasonably fair laws, because that will be a more profitable society for the sovereign, and one in which she is less likely to be violently overthrown. Remember that the sovereign is always concerned with her own best interests, and so will not want to risk assassination or overthrown by passing unfair laws.

Also, the citizens do retain one of their natural rights, and that is the right to self defense. This right is not given up in the social contract (Hobbes actually claims that it is impossible to give up this right), so if the sovereign is coming after you with her troops, you are not obligated to follow the laws and you can do anything at all to save your life, even kill the sovereign. Even if the sovereign just wants to put you in jail, you can do anything all to stay out of jail.

Furthermore, Hobbes claims that the sovereign cannot force you into military service, since this puts your life in mortal danger.

c) Summary: According to Hobbes, we have only one natural right in civilized society, which is our right to defend our lives. All other rights in civilized society are merely legal rights, and these are simply whatever the sovereign (i.e., king or government) feels like granting to the citizens. Hobbes offers no criterion which would determine what rights the sovereign ought to grant to the citizens other than the self-interest of the sovereign.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Nature and Natural Law are from God, of course, and reflect his goodness. Conformity to natural law is the way in which we partake of God's providence in achieving the goods he intends for us.

Can I just go around quoting you as saying this? It would be awfully fun.

Seriously, I think I understand you now. Natural law can be the expression of the divine will or not, but one way another, you're discussing people who believe that man can use reason to determine what is moral based on that natural law. Sorry for the confusion - I think my own objections to the church's use of that sort of argument blinded me a bit. I have grave difficulties with their insouciant and whim-ridden mixing of reasoned and revealed morality.

With that in mind, I see the sense in your comments about homosexuality, and of course I laud your nicely made distinction between what we can observe as being common and what we might through reason determine to be moral. I think you're right that that distinction is a key issue. However, I believe that the argument you summarize - i.e., homosexuality is immoral based on the idea that sex is naturally for the purpose of procreation, without reference to any divine insight - also shows that that sort of distinction (between what we observe to be common and what we think to be immoral) must inevitably rooted in assumptions that cannot be proved either through empirical observation nor through logical reasoning.

I say this because the central thing one must apparently accept in that argument against homosexuality is that a thing that deviates from its observable purpose or role in a "natural" state, generally meaning in the non-human world, is immoral. However, that creates a problem. In the "natural" world, the purpose of our mouths and digestive systems is to consume raw food substances. Are we not then engaging in acts of willful perversion when we perform the unnatural process of cooking our food?

Yes, yes, there is an answer. "Cooking food only makes more effective the the natural act, which is eating in order to gain nutriment from food." Very well, then, what are we to make of singing? The natural purposes of vocalizations are generally to communicate warnings or needs between individuals, to guide movement, to frighten off rivals or predators, or to let mothers and infants find each other. Wandering about making noises with none of those purposes is a quite unnatural abuse of the faculty.

We might argue, of course, that singing is pleasant and harmless, and therefore it's not a serious violation of the natural law. But then we might say just the same thing about sodomy, mightn't we - at least, if it was compentently performed? And then we're back to drawing distinctions based on our personal preferences or cultural norms rather than on logic and reason. The same problems spring up with pretty much all of the arts and many of the crafts, and all manner of harmless and joyful human behaviors. That doesn't mean that they are sinful - or at least to me it doesn't - but what it does generally suggest to me is that natural law arguments have a very serious problem. They offer the theory that that which is natural is moral - a theory that itself cannot be proven in any way, and is as much a hunch as any other - and then immediately begin qualifying and hedging that claim, and applying it in some places and not in others, until the logical consistency is shot to pieces.

As for Hobbes, I have no problem with the idea of the social contract. I tend to see things that way myself, and to see any society as a continual tension between individual liberties and the need for some social stability. I suppose where I differ from Hobbes is that I don't think anyone or anything is born with such a thing as a "right" to anything. Nature seems to me to make it abundantly clear that she doesn't give a fig what anyone feels entitled to. I think of rights more as a human invention - things we grant to each other and attempt to defend. It's not so much that I think that Hobbes is wrong about how creatures behave in nature as that I don't see any point in calling anything in it a "right" per se. I don't think it's right or wrong; I think it's just what is.

That's where I would go on the social contract as well. I don't think it's a system of morality; I think it's just a description of how people have arranged political power and what seems generally to work. I think it does a good job of helping us to understand political systems and arrange them to grant humans as much liberty and stability as possible, but I don't think that the concept has anything to do with what is moral or immoral. I suppose that it's possible to build a moral system around that basis, or around a natural law basis for that matter, but when I see those systems in practice they always seem to me at the core to contradict themselves, or to ignore their own tenants when it's convenient.

Shanglan

 

[rgraham666]

The only being that can be perfectly 'objective' is God. I think.

So people who claim to be 'objective', as far as I'm concerned, are either lying or delusional.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Personally, I very much doubt that there is any one single model that works best for all humans anyway. Our intelligence, our social nature, and our long lives make us complex, and that makes it considerably more difficult to predict our behavior or create uniform patterns in it. I think that most people's views of an ideal society have a great deal to do with their upbringing and experiences and relatively little to do with other people's needs, goals, or natures. We tend to build up our idea of reality from what we know ourselves, however unusual our circumstances might have been, and our thoughts on what would be best for other people are very difficult to disentangle from what would be best for ourselves. I don't necessarily mean that in a cynical sense of wishing to exploit others for one's own good, although of course that can be part of it; I mean that even the most well-intentioned person I think will find it difficult to imagine others being happy in situations he or she would not enjoy, possibly for purely individual reasons.

Sometimes it seems to me that the best system for governing humans might be to give them a variety of options and let them move to the area that's run as best suits them. Of course, that would only work until the people who all liked the idea of killing everyone else and taking their worldly possessions all got together.

Shanglan

Pardon my butting in here when I have not taken the time to participate in this thread for reasons I explained here, but I cant resist noting that Shang has very elegantly and comprehensively related one of the three "existential facts" about humans and reality which must be recognized by any social/economic system if it is to work well. Specifically, that all humans are different and unique. Here is how I described these "existential realities" in an earlier discussion:

"Scarcity" (of resources) is one of three existential realities upon which all good public policy must be based. (The ultimate scarce resource is time: Every human person has a finite amount of it before they die.)

The second is that human nature is immutable, and self interest is an inseparable element of it. ("Self interest" broadly defined; it does not mean atomistic individuals relentlessly grasping for every last penny or advantage. It does assume that in general individuals seek to use their talents, abilities and skills in a manner that maximizes their private returns.)

The third reality is that every human is unique, and has a unique set of talents, abilities, skills and desires (per Shang, above.)



PS. Shang, I think your tongue was in cheek when you said that last bit. People aren't always noble, but neither are they always savage.

 

[Pure]

observations on RA,

P 1) isn't it odd how a subscriber to 'objective morality' with fixed principles that apply always to all humans, principles which, furthermore are said to be graspable by all humans in virtue of their (common) Reason, is affirming that a social system must recognize
*as a core principle* each human's uniqueness; each's *differences* from all others.

RA The third reality is that every human is unique, and has a unique set of talents, abilities, skills and desires (per Shang, above.)


P 2) as to "human nature is immutable", note that no set of observations can sustain this point; (compare "horses' nature is immutable")

it's not a scientific point (not found in any science text, for example). that is why i have used the term 'rationalist' to describe this approach to ethics (based on such claims).

RA The second [fact or reality] is that human nature is immutable,
======

P: i shan't elaborate; it would suck up too much of my time with no discernable payoff.

 

[Pure]

hi shang,

that was a thoughtful piece.

i tend to agree that there are no natural rights. my piece was intended to indicate that if i had to concede any, they would be those recognized by Hobbes. and as you say, they are definitely peculiar as rights, e.g. the right to take whatever i want for my own benefit. according to a modern conception, if person A asserts a moral right, this is not such as would endanger his life when another person B, asserts the same right.

it follows then, that any 'right to life' is a social product. (iow, a part of all social compacts is some sort of prohibition against arbitrary or indiscriminate murder.) but here is where it gets sticky: almost every society has been *less* than universal in bestowing this right*of life. (iow, it has created loopholes in its murder prohibition.) in the initial example of this thread, many human societies have not fully recognized a 'right to life' of the newly born, including some of those that the 'rights' people say they admire, e.g., ancient Greece and Rome. likewise a 'right to life' of a slave or a child is commonly quite circumscribed in the case of disobedience [see the death penalty prescribed in the OT, for example].
===

PS. If the singer as great an offender against Nature as the sodomist, what a moral monster is the singing sodomist!

---
*arguably, every society with a death penalty is circumscribing the asserted 'right to life.'

 

[amicus]

Pure: "...Locke famously asserted that the Creator had given us the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Rand's objectivists concur [substituting Nature for God].

Unfortunately there is no evidence the "Creator" or "Nature" gives or supports such rights...."

~~~~~~~~~~

"One fine day..." (old song) a mountain is going to fall on Pure's head and a light bulb will dimly light casting a shadow of comprehension concerning reason and rationality in the mind of Pure. (But I won't hold my breath)

Pure, like most Deists, wants something outside mankind to direct him in his thoughts. Alas, there be none.

Homo sapiens is the only sentient, self aware life form on this planet and perhaps in the universe as we know it.

So what is it about this species that axiomatically dictates natural rights? That concept that Pure so detests.

There is neither a 'god given' or 'natural law' in terms of such as the laws of gravity, the poor Pure can draw upon to give sanctity to human life, leaving Pure at an absolute loss in terms of justifying his 'right' to live.

Yet I, the amicable amicus readily and happily acknowledge Pure's right to his own life; and I do so with the absolute certainty that I perform a rational, logical and even generous act in doing so, cuz I don't like the cuss very much.

At the very instant a human life is conceived, a totally new and unique entity comes into existence. It bears the paternal and maternal genetic blueprint of its progenitors and all those who preceded in the ancestral line.

And if that conceived life survives gestation and is born into this world, it, by definition, has a 'right' to live. An innate and absolute, inalienable right to life.

Why? The petulant Pure whines to the affable Amicus, "why, when it is not a god given right (there being no god) and why, if it can not be demonstrated like the laws of physics? why oh why must you be so obstinate, amicus, to insist that the right to life is innate and absolute when you offer no proof at all!!!???


Well, Pure, absent a deity to sanctify life and make it sacred, and absent a pattern in the natural order of the stars that spells out the rights of we wee humans on Sol Three, I suggest you look within the very nature of man, the rational animal hisself to discover the logical and rational path of endeavor the mind of man has journied upon lo these many years to establish the efficacy of epistemology.

It has been a tenuous and fragile path of evolution that brought homo sapiens to the top of the heap. At any moment the sun may go nova and eight minutes later we are all toast and the universe would not notice.

That absolute right to life I herald so much, can be stamped out by a dinosaurs foot that crushes mum & dad & baby all under one heelprint. Or catastrophic floods or fires or volcano's or earthquakes or asteroids or even a new ice age brought about because I drove my car one too many miles yesterday.

Once the reluctant Pure has that vision, that all human values emanate from the objective and absolute fact that human life does indeed exist, then perhaps the Pure one will be more affable, like me. (grins)

And Black Shanglan...you wrote, and I just paraphrase, 'jazz and easy listening' what kind of absolute or universal values could possibly apply?

Well...if I hear what you are saying, there then are no objective standards by which one can measure music, or art in any aspect, that Jimi Hendrix and Rachmaninoff cannot be compared on any 'rational' scale, that all art is subjective and simply a matter of taste and personal preference.

Izzat what U mean?


amicus

 

[Pure]

just a small clarification,

my old friend.

Amicus I suggest you look within the very nature of man, the rational animal hisself to discover the logical and rational path of endeavor the mind of man has journied upon lo these many years to establish the efficacy of epistemology.

P: For purposes of this thread, looking at 'the nature of man' is looking at Nature.

 

[amicus]

my old friend.

Amicus I suggest you look within the very nature of man, the rational animal hisself to discover the logical and rational path of endeavor the mind of man has journied upon lo these many years to establish the efficacy of epistemology.

P: For purposes of this thread, looking at 'the nature of man' is looking at Nature.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Izzat actually a rose? I missed that in your post.

If I may make a slight distinction to your unusually brief and succinct reply, it is precisely that difference between the nature of man, with free will, and 'nature' itself which is limited to action and reaction that makes more than a subtle difference.

It is also that aspect of modern man that so infuriates the 'liberal, pastoral, left', than man, changes and manipulates 'nature' to please his own desires.

"Anythng nature can do, man can do better..." has been my motto every since I went to the top of the Empire State building and the Eiffle Tower.

The mind of man can indeed create a paradise on earth with every comfort imaginable, or live in squalor like the Africans, or under oppression like the Ayrabs.

But if in fact and deed, the 'rights of man' are defended and protected and the value of human life is supreme and the individual is left 'free' to satisfy his own goals, then yes...anything is possible...


Here, take ur rose back...

amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami,

you seem to miss that "Nature" is just a term referring the 'natural world'.

human, like horses, are part of the natural world, which is not to deny special human characteristics and powers, including of choice.

the creations of humans are, derivatively parts of the natural world, as well, just as the dams of beavers. another reason this is true is that there is no way to draw a line--nature/above-nature-- between sharp stones and spears on the one hand and coffee grinders and laser rifles on the other; between a hole that catches rain and an aluminum water trough.

i realize that Ayn Rand wants a particularly sharp line between humans and other animals, somewhat in the tradition of Aristotle and the Church: Man is the rational animal.

but however 'hard and fast' is the line, animals and humans are part of the objective world; their behaviors exhibit rationality, e.g. adaptation of means to ends. hence one can productively *reason* about both animals and humans, just as Aristotle did. that is why St Thomas, centuries ago, came to some of the same conclusions as you and Ayn Rand.

 

[amicus]

Pure: "you seem to miss that "Nature" is just a term referring the 'natural world'..."

~~~~~~~~~

"Nature: The particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin or constitution; native or inherant character; the nature of man. ..."

That is definition #1 in my Random House Unabridged...

Thus the term 'nature' includes a wider concept than you appear to accept.

"...human, like horses, are part of the natural world, which is not to deny special human characteristics and powers, including of choice..."


Yes, of course, humans, horses even sea horses are all part of the natural world, but it is those 'special' human characteristics that are the defining factor in identifying man as the 'rational' animal. There are no other 'rational' animals in existence.

This has been a long term near conspiracy by liberal intellects to persuade us that whales and dolphins and even orangutans possess a degree of rationality. They do not and the attempt is a transparent effort to demean that special characteristic that specifically defines homo sapiens as, rational animal.

To use your own words with which to hoist you upon your own petard, "lacking evidence thereof..." There being no evidence of intelligent life anywhere in the universe other than homo sapiens on earth, one must logically conclude that no other such life exists.

Perhaps the first step in your re-education, should be to ask you to admit that man, the species, homo sapiens, is the only known, sentient being in existence, capable of rational thought and self aware of his own mortality and possessed of free will.

Izzat too big a step for you?


amicus...

 

[Pure]

large area of agreement, but we must proceed the to moral issues

Pure: "...human, like horses, are part of the natural world, which is not to deny special human characteristics and powers, including of choice..."


Am Yes, of course, humans, horses even sea horses are all part of the natural world, but it is those 'special' human characteristics that are the defining factor in identifying man as the 'rational' animal. There are no other 'rational' animals in existence.

P: OK, humans are part of the natural world. You agree. The natural world is that addressed by science, social, natural, and physical. Yes every species has 'defining characteristics,' and, on the evidence, only humans have the power to do very abstract thinking/reasoning.
Dogs and monkeys, however, are capable of simple means, end thinking, which I call reasoning: to get to the food, go around the fence, for example.

The claim "There is no other rational animal in existence" as phrased, is not a scientific one. I would accept, however, "There is no evidence of any other higher beings, with human [or better] reasoning abilities, ie. the visiting aliens in their hi-tech flying saucers
exist in imagination only, so far as we know.


P: [I, amicus, would] ask you to admit that man, the species, homo sapiens, is the only known, sentient being in existence, capable of rational thought and self aware of his own mortality and possessed of free will.

P: on rational thought, yes, 'higher forms of rational thought,' as above.

P "Possessed of free will." is not a claim within any science. It is not subject to empirical demonstration. The way I would put it, is that, when humans do moral reasoning, we *assume* we/they have, at least sometimes, meaningful "choice." Those acts of choice, however, are subject to the same analysis as any other human acts, like my stealing your silverware. All human acts make sense in a web of reasons and causes, and the agent's history. That is why they have a middling to high, but not 99% predictability.

P: None of this directly goes to the point of this thread, since 'rational humans, and 'value of human life' do not yield, "Don't kill deformed infants," indeed, nor "Don't kill homosexuals" nor "Don't kill disobedient slaves," or even "Don't keep slaves."

Two roses for you calm and sane reply, to which i've now replied.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

P 1) isn't it odd how a subscriber to 'objective morality' with fixed principles that apply always to all humans, principles which, furthermore are said to be graspable by all humans in virtue of their (common) Reason, is affirming that a social system must recognize
*as a core principle* each human's uniqueness; each's *differences* from all others.

RA The third reality is that every human is unique, and has a unique set of talents, abilities, skills and desires (per Shang, above.)


P 2) as to "human nature is immutable", note that no set of observations can sustain this point; (compare "horses' nature is immutable")

it's not a scientific point (not found in any science text, for example). that is why i have used the term 'rationalist' to describe this approach to ethics (based on such claims).

RA The second [fact or reality] is that human nature is immutable,
======

P: i shan't elaborate; it would suck up too much of my time with no discernable payoff.

The sad and blood-soaked history of the 20th century is in large part due to the desire of misguided idealists to disprove the immutability of human nature.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Roxanne, those three existential realities are interesting ideas. I'm intrigued by some of the ramifications as regards earlier discussions - e.g., Murray's "supercharged" and super-wealthy society vs. an assumption of inherent scarcity - but personally I think them relatively sensible guidelines. Of course one may quibble here and there, for instance on human nature being immutable; there's always mental incapacity to consider in all of its unfortunate manifestations. But I like the way in which it reminds visionaries of all stripes that their visions must address certain awkward realities.

As for this -

PS. Shang, I think your tongue was in cheek when you said that last bit. People aren't always noble, but neither are they always savage.

I'm not a thorough cynic, but honestly, I'm only partly joking there. That people are not always savage is a joyful reality of life that I gladly embrace. That it's not difficult to find quite a few people who are savage is an ugly reality that I must nonetheless accept. In my heart of hearts, I honestly believe that if we allowed people to seperate themselves into like-minded groups and live as they wished, there would be some Manson families, Nazi cells, buccaneers and slave-traders amongst them. History, from my point of view, tells us that when people have the power to do as they wish, some of them - not just individuals but larger groups - will choose to do evil.

In fact, I think that's an inevitable result of the very three realities you mention. All people are different - and some prefer violence more than others. Scarcity is ultimately an issue, and self-interest dictates getting as much for as little as possible. Inevitably, some humans will solve that equation in a short-term and violent fashion.

Shanglan