Your objection doesn’t make any sense at all.
And so you share with me how you don’t understand. Can you be more specific?
I think he’s just pointing out the circular reasoning with a reductio. If natural is that which is good, and that which is unnatural immoral, and murder is immoral, then how can murderers find murder good?
Rocks, fish, and trees don’t have anything to do with the fact that human beings eventually die. Also Angurse also explained that death is natural ‘human’ tendency, so the “No, because we are talking about human nature” is a non sequitur.
Your question is literally the same as “whence is the law of gravity derived?” Through reason and reflection. Empirically. It’s true whether we grasp the concept or even name it.
The more cases which support the natural law, the better.
We agree, unless the referent is zefreak’s falling boulder upon the passing man.
Explain to me how a dead human is still of the nature of a human. Keep in mind another principle of human nature is life.
Human beings are mortal. Angurse’s point was that if we categorize things (murder) as bad because they prevent human beings from existing, shouldn’t everything that prevents humans from existing be considered bad? For example euthanasia, aging, risky jobs and so on.
And the problem becomes ever worse when you consider scarcity and tradeoffs. Lets say there’s two ppl who need a heart transplant and only one heart. Now if you give it to one that’s wrong from the point of view of the other.
So, your objection still makes no sense.
I’m not sure how ? It seems to me that aggression is a moral category, not a praxeological one.
True, but still that doesn’t presuppose legal norms. Argumentation per se doesn’t prove much.
Yes, some control. It still doesn’t prove the legitimacy of natural rights.
The fact remains : you can be a chained slave who still can speak and argue.
False.
Some economic truths do. But that has nothing to do with the fact that ‘argumentation ethics’ doesn’t work as well as you think it does.
So ? Whether pastafarianism is true or false also needs to be settled by argument. Does that prove that pastafarianism is true ? Or false ? Or ?
Now, wait… I thought the natural tendency of humans was to exist?
When a human hits puberty they are no longer the human they once were - I don’t see the point. What is the natural sense of the term?
What is the “act of will,” I’m not familiar with that phrase?
No, because humans actually do tend to die.
Nah,
Charles Anthony is a theist who is fully convinced that either morality is justified because his god says so, or there’s no morality at all. Since he can’t prove that his religious dogma is true he chooses to attack any sort of secular morality.
That’s why a disease is called a disease, a sickness a sickness. As I had as a signature until some days ago by Rothbard and previous natural philosophers back to Aristotle here is the expanded quote:
"The concept of “good” (and therefore of “bad”) is only relevant to living entities. Since stones or molecules have no goals or purposes, any idea of what might be “good” for a molecule or stone would properly be considered bizarre. But what might be “good” for an elm tree or a dog makes a great deal of sense: specifically, “the good” is whatever conduces to the life and the flourishing of the living entity. The “bad” is whatever injures such an entity’s life or prosperity. Thus, it is possible to develop an “elm tree ethics” by discovering the best conditions: soil, sunshine, climate, etc., for the growth and sustenance of elm trees; and by trying to avoid conditions deemed “bad” for elm trees: elm blight, excessive drought, etc. A similar set of ethical properties can be worked out for various breeds of animals.
Thus, natural law sees ethics as living-entity- (or species-) relative. What is good for cabbages will differ from what is good for rabbits, which in turn will differ from what is good or bad for man. The ethic for each species will differ according to their respective natures.
Man is the only species which can — and indeed must — carve out an ethic for himself. Plants lack consciousness, and therefore cannot choose or act."
my computer’s dictionary:
disease |diˈzēz| noun a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp.one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury
This is why there is medicine and doctor’s treat patients, etc… Bad is what is injurious to a species life and/or prosperity. It is called nolition.
You fail to understand, thus, intellectual apprehend and that’s why you say, “still makes no sense.” For it’s you talking and making that statement. I am not the sole authority on this topic so you could find many people who have discussed what I am talking about, for instance, natural philosophers and scientists.
Medical ethics has been a long discussed topic.
any more inquires?
While for discovering theories that predict how gravity will operate, we have the phenomena of the empirical universe, what is natural law’s parallel for discovering it? While gravity will dictate the trajectory of a falling rock, whence we can discover theories to describe, and predict the rock’s path, man can violate the “natural law”, he can kill, despite the fact that killing is against the “natural law” - hence, where is the empirical existence of the natural law?
The utilitarian perspective does not “support the natural law”, it is its own, independent form of ethics.
Did I say murder is wrong because “everyone” believes that ?
What I’m saying is that people who do evil (i.e. murderers) don’t prove through their actions that the good doesn’t exist. Murder is always morally wrong…and…some people commit murder anyway. But that doesn’t make murder right - at best it shows that the murderer thought that killing was in his best interest.
Keep in mind that the post to which you responded, which I then proceeded to respond to, (if I am not mistaken) was against the proposition that murdering being amoral is a result of man’s universal predeposition against murder.
Yes, but as I said at death a human is no longer of their nature, their human nature. That would be a whole other discussion, maybe on life after death in the clouds stringing harps, going to Hades, or the Bardo states of Tibetan buddhists, idk.[:)]
A principle of human nature, as I linked in another post, is life.
my computer dictionary:
will |wɪl| |wɪl|noun1 [usu. in sing. ] the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action
There are two aspects of will. There is appetitive will in which all life (the scientific classification of such) in which is absolutely active. And then there is the intellectual will that can decide upon appetitive will, thus, will in general. Appetitive will and intellectual will are both the same will. It is the faculty of the human that is distinct, not will itself. Act of will is teleological. Will power is not an end, but the operation, the means to the end. Will power is a subset of the act of will. Detailed, technical stuff.
Sure a human does die, but that point of death is not the complete human that once was in accord with the principle of life, etc… When Tom dies there is a change and unfortunately that still, dead body, is not completely Tom anymore. If you want to speculate on what happened to Tom when he died, then that’s your call.
aka utilitarianism
So, after puberty a teenager is no longer of their (childish) nature? Its completely natural for human nature to change (as we’ve agreed).
Again so? Naturally humans change to a non-existent state. Would reviving a dead person be against its nature? A “reverse-murder” if you will.
Basically, the act of deciding and initiating an action?
I don’t think there is any point to death, its just an aspect of life.
Again so? When Tommy hits puberty there is a change and unfortunately that sweaty, enlarged body, is not completely Tommy anymore.
Look, if you want to say a human who has dies ceases to be a human, fine. That still doesn’t answer the question of murder violating natural law because it goes against humans “tendency to exist.” The argument is simply flawed as its perfectly within human nature to stop existing (or stop being a human, as you’ve said). At least, as far as I can tell.
Is that non-existent human - human? I’d say logically that’s a contradiction and against the law of non-contradiction.
Can a dead person be revived? If so, then medicine is truly amazing. What is death if not a life - thus - do you really want to speculate outside of science? That’s your choice. People do it all the time in religion and spirituality, etc…
Technically, the act of deciding takes will, but that particular act called deciding is reason. Not only initiating a particular action based on a decision, choice, but also action itself of the human.
Not a point, as in meaning, if that’s what you meant. I’m saying at the medically decided point of death. When science categories what was a life, as now being something else, and thus Tom is dead - no longer the Tom that was alive.
This is a failure of you to understand between life and inanimate body that once was called Tom and people still may project upon this inanimate body called Tom, but that’s not the Tom that was alive.
Humans tend to exist when they are human. Even a human that was murdered is no longer the human they once were - they are dead. Medicine fights natural death. Eating healthy fights natural death and disease, etc… Exercise and so on. As humans we undoubtedly in some form or fashion have gone to extreme measures compared to other creatures on this earth to preserve ourselves. But murder is not natural death. To murder a person is not solely based on the principle of will and life. Universally liberty, freedom from physical coercion, can be intellectually apprehended by humans. That’s the fact. Criminals either knowingly counter the act of another human and physically coerce the other human when the criminal being human and knowing they are violating the right of life (person) does so by choice when the criminal could have chosen other wise. Rocks falling on people and natural death are acts committed by non-chosen means. It is this fact that human’s chose that makes their violation a crime. Now what about an insane person who is out-of-their mind and kills somebody? That would be a more interesting discussion which in the courts today sometimes this criminal is deemed insane and a different approach to repercussions is considered at times. This argument usually comes back to human can choose the violate another human - free-will is significant in understanding this.
Not when choice is understood. Humans have free-will aka free choice - another principle of human nature. It undoubtedly may be challenging to know, for sure, if a person committed a crime by choice or due to a psychological disease, which is a whole other topic in itself.
edit: Also, I understand some people like to blame God for killing their son in an auto accident (blaming God cause it was an accident and not the other driver, etc…) People like to blame God or the devil for taking grandma away. But I’m not speculating upon a voluntary act by some other entity when considering natural death (an act of nature and thus an involuntary action, disease, old age, etc…). Now if a person does an investigation and can prove such and such a product or their water supply killed grandpa, then a justifiable case and criminal charges against another person violating the right of life (person) could be heard in court.
Use whatever term you wish, its still beside the point.
Yes. (Depending on how one defines death at least)
The act of dying itself is of what then?
And what is life if not death? This is silly.
I don’t know, you used the phrase “point of death” you should explain it yourself further.
I grasp the difference, do you understand that the Tom after puberty is not the Tom before?
Understood, its a terminology issue. Please stop repeating yourself so much.
One could easily contend that using medicine to fight death is unnatural, and that you are living an unnatural life.
This is going completely outside of the statement I first questioned, you seem to be mixing in various moral arguments to justify it. Do you agree it is flawed (as far as it was presented)?
Can you choose not to obey the laws of gravity or any other natural law? Perhaps calling it a natural law is the flaw.
No it’s not if you are arguing that a dead, non-existent human is somehow existent and alive. That’s a contradiction.
true
that’s what I thought when you brought it up, but maybe I was mistaken. Maybe you are talking about human nature and not some kind of creature that is no longer a human.
life has ceased aka “point of death”. Do you see what I mean now?
To discuss right of life (person) the discussion is about human nature. Not what a boulder did to a person. Not about the mystery called natural death. These are involuntary actions. To discuss right of life is to understand human nature and all that pertains. It is against the law for a person to kill another due to that is a voluntary act of choice called nolition. Humans, having free-will, can violate their own nature by choice, and to voluntarily murder another person is wrong. That’s the premised argument.