It was definitely a light-humored joke. Text doesn’t convey tone of voice unfortunately. I understand what you said in your post.
A certain number of languages exists that do not differentiate between blue and green. Therefore, if a speaker of that language were learning English, then one would need to provide physical examples of the referent of blue and the referent of green in order to teach them.
That does not change my point.
Claims that can bring forth obligations individuals have towards other individuals and when they are transgressed, reparations can be required.
Example: Tony is obligated to treat X in a non-violent manner and X must do the same except if Tony is coercing X or X is coercing Tony with the threat of violent force.
Rational deduction concerning the welfare of man.
I don’t have any pictures of Natural Law for you to look at, but according to my argument if Natural Law exists then it flows necesarily from God. I’m not trying here to prove that God exists, but for the sake of providing an example of what Natural Law might be I’ll use the Judeo-Christian God since that’s what I’m most familiary with and perhaps what other users here are most familiar with.
In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, and oppression.
Some people also like to use the NAP, which I think is a fine example of how a non-theistic group of people might coexist peacefully, but I wouldn’t consider the NAP Natural Law.
Long ducks out of providing an epistemological basis:
"In other words, what is the epistemological basis of Natural Law?
Without some answers to these questions — or at least, without some hope that they can in principle be answered — any political theory that appeals to Natural Law is going to be on shaky ground.
At the end of Part III, in Autumn 1994, I promised that the next installment would consider “The Basis of Natural Law.” Well, it’s been over two years, but now I return at last to the promised topic. A full-scale defense of Natural Law theory, however, is a task beyond the scope of this article;"
He goes on to handle objections that have nothing to do with a priori logical proof, so this is not what I asked for.
Now you are asking for a priori logical proof, before it was just logical proof and before that you wanted someone to ‘show you’ natural law
What is this this nonsense of Long ducking out? It is Objection Three.
After actually reading this article will you next resort to Descartes and ask: ‘Well how do we know anything is true!?’
Please show me where he has supplied any logical proof, either a priori (which is implicit in the idea of a purely logical proof anyway) or otherwise. Long’s “Objection Three” doesn’t do so, nor does it even attempt to do so. It tries to show parallels with science, when science itself is not based on logical proof so is not an avenue of pursuit that could possibly answer the OP.
Any logical proof of what? That natural law exists in the first place? And what is this nonsense on natural science not being based on logical proof? Are you trying to imply to me that the sun isn’t in the center of the universe or the sky isn’t blue?
Any proof of any natural law theory.
Science is about what appears to be (empirical facts). I purport that natural law is also. Neither have been shown to be based fundamentally on logic; that doesn’t mean either theory is useless. It simply means that trying to logically prove either theory a priori would be misguided.
That there is such a thing as ‘natural law theory’ or that ‘natural law’ tenets actually affect individuals?
The natural sciences cannot be deduced a priori so that is why you fail to ‘logical prove’ natural science a priori. You are trying to exclaim that natural law theory isn’t meaningless, yet we somehow cannot explain it which leads me to question, if we cannot explain natural law according to you then why do you deduce that it isn’t meaningless?
Again I point out Objection Three on Long’s article which is exactly the objection that you have.
Empirical science can’t exist without an a-priori framework.
Really, some people should do some thinking about basic philosophical issues before talking as if they knew what they are talking about.
More logical positivist gibberish.
Therefore all knowledge is mere description/narrative? Neo, where’s my tight latex bodysuit?! Anyways, my counterargument to that is this: if knowledge is purely description then all attempts to forge any causality is flawed. But here’s the catch, it seems in terms of physics that’s not the case. Even when considering what seems incidental such as the travel path of an electron (as invisioned in quantum electrodynamics), there is still real invariant parameters of operation that cannot ever be overriden. Any argument to the contrary is based on what I call the “all possible worlds” fallacy (the idea that there exists worlds (mentally conceived) that contradict the given fact or argument, even though there’s no evidence that such an alternate world existing in the first place or without finding a means to bridge said world with ours).
So, can you show me a world where humans exist that don’t have a certain set of parameters for their operation (physical and social)? If not, do you concede that science isn’t always description?
Proof of whatever those who say “natural law is proven” mean by that declaration.
You’ve stopped making sense and are putting words in my mouth. I’ll take that as a “No” in answer to the OP.
Anyone else?
Do we really have to bring in quantum mechanics to prove natural law?
Anyway, the science issue is another can of worms which I would be happy to argue in another thread. For now, I refer back to the OP:
Long did not supply a proof, and his statements about science - whether true or false - in any case do not constitute a formal logical proof, so do not answer the OP. Can someone kindly supply a proof and move the other stuff to a different thread?
Not to seem coy, but FTFY. I’m not sure what else I can add to that edit, but if you’re not able to grasp it alone, then take it as a hint that Nature and its children are not results of blind chance (and yes I’m an atheist that supposes a godless teleology).
Are you trying to say that the basis for natural law is science? If so, have you heard of praxeology?
In either case, the OP remains unanswered.
No, I’m saying nature is the basis of natural law. One can reason things out in a manner that is empirical without falling for the bullshit that what is known empirically must be purely incidental or description (aka narrative). sighs If you don’t get it, then I won’t bother.
Blatant question begging.
I tried to show that but you said ‘no no Long isn’t ‘supplying’ enough’
Putting words in your mouth?
The bold is my doing.
You have clearly stated that natural law isn’t ‘useless’ yet you are also clearly implying that we cannot figure out natural law because it cannot be ‘logically proven.’ Therefore my question still stands: How do you know if Natural law is useful or useless without actually being able to logically deduce it?
You are clearly being the unpleasable skeptic. No proof is good enough nor is there ever enough of it. Perhaps an admirable trait in small degrees, however, how do you deduce self-consciousness? How do you know you are not REALLY dreaming right now? If your answer is akin to ‘Well I don’t know’ then might I suggest actually figuring that out before you come to deduce ethics.
Well you’re right, AC, I said something I cannot easily prove when I said the endeavor of proving natural law was misguided, so I delete that statement for now. It wasn’t necessary anyway.
I still just want an answer to the OP: a formal logical proof of whatever those who say “natural law is proven” mean by that, using unambiguous well-defined terms. Again, I only ask that so insistently because people claim there is a logical proof.