Well if you understand, then I guess I won’t need to repeat myself anymore… thank goodness.
sigh… Please don’t. That’s simply a ridiculous assertion and my time is more valuable than that to spend it listening to you go on about how medicine is unnatural, etc… You are at liberty to do so, but I am at liberty to not entertain this.
No. I am completely inside of the discussion. Principle of free choose is of human nature. learn human nature and you’ll understand, well, human nature…
No, perhaps you do not understanding that I’m talking about human nature and it is a natural law: all humans choose. It is universal that humans choose. Liberty and freedom are different than power. sigh To have to talk about the simple things about who we are as humans to another human is… sigh. I suggest you think for yourself, do some introspection on your own life as a human, and intellectually apprehend your own nature. When it comes to justice it is stepping in to counter a person that is violating rights. What would be up on trial is the person and the extension of their will (they used a gun, etc…), but what is undoubtedly clearly on trial is their judgment. If you can scientifically point out where the judgment of natural death sits or the judgement of a boulder, then let me know. But you can’t. This is why I have to repeat myself, because yet again you bring up the “laws of gravity” which is not of human. We are talking about human nature. Examine your own understanding when making such comments. Good night.
To die is in the nature of man. Death is in the nature of every living organism. To be murdered is not in our nature. If it were, then we wouldn’t exist. Get it yet?
Gravity is a law of nature. Gravity is a part of the natural law. ANY law is necessarily a part of the natural law, because only laws of nature are absolutely true, i.e. gravity. Your question is confused.
For the ten-millionth time: the natural law is “murder is bad.” It is not “do not murder” or “murder is impossible.”
I add. Natural death is involuntary. For what is on trial pertaining to a criminal is ultimately or near such, their judgement (voluntary action, free choice). This is an addition to why rights pertain to humans and NOT boulders and animals.
Also, when a person dies, they are no longer human and the discussion isn’t about human nature. Religion usually speculates on matters when a humans life ceases. I’m sure we are discussing science, not religion. Not to say a person can’t speculate using their religion, but that’s a whole other field outside of the science of human nature.
Back at you. For the millionth time: Prove that murder is bad.
Heck, try to define “bad” if you can.
If murder is always morally wrong, who gets to decide that a death qualifies as murder?
How about we just cut through all of the crap. You atheists have no objective basis for your morality and you will forever struggle with your own cognitive dissonance.
Bad according to human nature has already been quoted in this thread. Go back and read it. It is a definition that has been around for as far as records show to Aristotle. Look up the word: nolition. So to understand a concept according to any field of study, such as natural philosophers, go straight to the horses mouth.
How about your skepticism is local and we are, I for one not to speak for others, are not going to let your skepticism ruin clarity and allow you to turn the world into a hodge-podge of confusion based on Charles inability to intellectually apprehend his own nature.
“You atheists…” lol… you’re lacking of understanding comes through loud and clear. I’m not an atheist. Is ignorance as grand as some people say?
No doubt I’m not the first person to spot the irony of a religious person calling out an atheist for lack of objective basis. How completely hilarious!
How do you know we are not atheist precisely because of objective reflection? I for one was raised christian for 19 years, converted to judaism for 1 year, before ditching the whole thing because it is utterly contradictory and ludicrous.
Gravity, and anything from the physical sciences is not absolutely true. It may very well be that we are completely deceived in referring to “gravity” as a single force; in fact, gravity may all of a sudden stop working. It is pure hubris to raise our knowledge to such a degree by calling our understanding of the laws of nature, such as gravity, a “natural law” for our knowledge will never be a “law”, it will only be a falliable theory.
By the way, I’m still more than keen on hearing a deduction of natural law ethics from an objective, empirical reality.
And yet you cannot give a natural law deduction of why murder is objectively bad. The entire thesis about murdering is bad because it is anathema to human flourishing relies on one valuing human flourishing, and every man does not value human-flourishing.
In Christianity, the Euthyphro Dilemma simply doesn’t matter; it is a false dilemma because goodness is grounded in God, and expressed by God - ubi caritas, ibi Deus.