Actually Natural law isn’t a proposition. Saying ‘Natural law’ is not a declarative statement that can be true or false. Saying 2+2=5 actually is a proposition.
No. Decreeing whether something is incorrect or correct, isn’t the same as declaring is as being morally wrong or right, the terms are being used in a different context. And commenting on such matters doesn’t mean one is engaging in contradiction.
Uh, no. I meant that the claim that “the natural law theory is wrong” or “the natural law theory is incorrect” is a proposition. That should have been obvious because I wrote:
I see what you mean. Saying whither natural law is correct or incorrect is a useless endeavour because you would then need to validate its correctness or incorrectness with value statements.
[^o)] Which one is it now, can they or can they not speak about… anything?
Do you realize that you can make value judgments that are irrelevant to morality? For example: “I like this chair.” Is that a moral judgment?
Well making value statements concerning morality is in fact establishing a moral system. I Ryan is saying natural law is WRONG, not that it is incorrect. Saying something is wrong is a value judgement.
When did I imply that “right” and “wrong” is different than “correct” and “incorrect”? And, when did I even say that “natural law is wrong” or that “natural law is incorrect”?
Do tell.
It is a value statement. Saying ‘I like this chair’ is implying I value this chair thereby implying a series of moral premises. I would ask why you like the chair, do you value comfort? color? Morality is defined as a code of conduct so seeking comfort or other desire can be put under that definition.
Well, no. They can still speak of morality, if just to say nothing more than the concept itself is incorrect. Otherwise you are contending that all amoralists are contradicting themselves by rejecting morals.
Wrong cannot be used as a synonym for incorrect?
Is natural law right or wrong? Correct or incorrect?
No I am contending that amoralists are suffering from performative contradiction by establishing the rightness or wrongness of moral systems. Explain how morality is correct or incorrect? Morality is define as a code of conduct proposed by a given group or individual. Explain how that is correct or incorrect.
No it can’t in terms of morality. Perhaps you will see this when trying to justify the correctness or incorrectness of morality itself.
Therefore, you believe that every possible human action presupposes a series of moral premises? If so, then what the hell does “moral” mean? If you believe that morality extends to all human actions whatever, then the meaning of the word is lost.
That is incredibly vague. Are you asking whether I think that a specific doctrine of natural law is true? Or, are you asking if natural laws exist? Or, what?
Not necessarily. We don’t speak of the morals of chair sitting. They are beign debates. We sweat the small stuff and talk about larger issues.
I am asking if you think natural law is a good and if the system itself is correct.
All action implies a prior value judgment. If you assert that all value judgments presuppose a moral code, then you implicitly assert that all action presupposes a moral code.
True, action does show whither or not things are good or bad. Preference through action after all.
What system? Many doctrines of natural law exist.