Explain. I don’t understand what you’re bringing up.[:)]
And what does that have to do within the context of the current discussion?
No. First you need to understand what natural means in the context of natural philosophy and science. Not the pseudo-versions. Like any field one goes into the concepts need to be understood. The doctor doesn’t jump right to the operating table. First the terms are to be understood within the context of medicine, same with law, same with economics, etc…
How is it in line?
maybe, maybe not…
Humans have many principles of our nature. I guess you thought there was only one principle of human nature. I can only suggest for you to read up on this subject. I’m not a book that can write long pages of a subject that is very detailed with numerous generalities to cover. Rothbards History of Economic volumes are over 1000 pages each. I haven’t read them yet, but he’s trying to cover a vast history full of knowledge. Covering these simple terms is like being a 101 university course when I’d rather be discussing some 300-400 level topics. At this point, I can only suggest you read up on a subject that has clarity, and provides detail and context that posting in a forum can never meet. In a forum there needs to be a little more give and take and at this moment your shuffling around without making the effort, seemingly, to notice the big picture.
It is a natural law of human nature. Without this natural law of human nature no more humans. Without the natural law of gravity no more gravity. A=A.
What was the original question. Bring it back then. [Y]
No, not so. I had no intention to discuss “right of life” or the “mystery of death.” This was the premise - “The natural law is not advice. It is a series of absolutely true factual statements. I.E., a natural law ethic for humans is “murder is bad.” It is absolutely true, because murder prevents humans from existing, which is certainly a natural tendency of humans.” That statement is all I am questioning. All this talk of boulders, trees, and fish have been you mixing arguments, using non-sequitars, circular reasoning, and missing the point.
Also, the idea that a human can violate his own nature sounds absurd
And? Perhaps first you should try and actually grasp where one is coming from before piling on various unrelated topics (think: boulders, fish, mystery of death, etc…)
Because my question has been taken completely off course, pretty much anything is in line at this point.
I have… however, I only questioned one proposal. I’m kindly asking you to stop assuming human nature is so well-defined and look at the glaring problem that comes from only categorizing murder as “bad” because it prevents existence, but at the same time not categorizing all other forms of death as bad… even though they all lead to the same non-existence, which was the basis for condemning murder. It makes no sense.
Sigh… thats not the least bit question begging.
I have already multiple times, but no more as I’m afraid you might try and answer it again.
Ok. I missed your original question and I apologize. A human can violate his or her own nature due to free-will. I brought up the principle of life, which is thus a right, due to this “absurdity” you say, “sounds”. If free choice sounds absurd to you, then so be it.
First you go on about how I keep bringing up subjects that have nothing to do with this topic, and you do it right here. “…not categorizing all other forms…” Don’t bring it up and I won’t bring it up. I think you don’t understand what you are talking about.
You see, as I’ve said a couple times now, what is on trial is the judgement of and thus demonstration of a person. Use forensics and some other detective work and figure out the crime. Natural death and a boulder are not voluntary nature’s but are involuntary in their nature (as far as I know pertaining to natural death for as I said to explore and reason natural death and how this happens beyond old age is to leave science and venture into the land of religion and I’m not talking about religion). You see now why this comes up, cause you keep bringing it up since you don’t understand human nature.
Its not free choice thats sounds absurd, its that idea that a human can violate his own nature. Its the premise of nature that can be violated that sounds silly, when humans naturally have free choice. Its ones nature violating ones nature. Absurd.
Thats the question I originally asked though, thats the topic, thats all that should be discussed (currently, that is). Thats the original question, the only question.
No. You completely missed the point… again. If non-existence goes against the natural tendency of humans and that is why “murder is bad” (which was posited) then its perfectly reasonable to say all manners of death also go against the natural tendency of humans, even natural ones. I.E. the nature of the death occurring isn’t relevant (whether it be murder, cancer, or even …boulders) because apparently non-existence itself is what goes against the natural tendency of humans. Your argument of whether it occurs voluntarily or involuntarily is completely meaningless when applied to such a statement.
I think suicide is absurd, but people do it. People come up with all kinds of reasons to counter their on will. You see, let’s start with “will”. The will to live is involuntary. We can’t stop living unless as a person, such a person comes up with reasons to pervert their own nature.
I understand the difficulty, but this is getting very detailed but oh well, let’s go down that path. I like what you wrote here, “Its ones nature violating ones nature.” The first nature well call nature-a, and the second nature-b. Nature-b is our passions, our desire, the what is called act of life that occurs in the appetitive aspect of a human. This is basically instinct. We live. Now nature-a is reason and free-choice. Nature-a can override nature-b. Nature-b will continue living involuntarily, the heart will beat, the brain will operate, the blood will pump, the nutritive aspect of a human will operate (what has been digested will be absorded in through the intestine’s, etc…), the cells will operate, if a cold virsus enters my body my white blood cells attack the virus but may not be affective depending upon various factors. I think you get the picture. Yet, a person can reason to go against what is happening involuntarily having us live (all that I listed). A person can decide and thus choice to go against this nature of their own.
I don’t know what your going on about. If we are not talking about a violation of the right of life, the voluntary judgement of a criminal that has done so - a murderer - and therefore we are not talking about such a criminal being on trial and the trial is about the judgement of a person doing something that is bad or good - meaning if they are guilty or innocent - then I don’t know what we are talking about either.
Excuse me while I try to drive a bus over that cliff of assumption. ‘Will means free will.’? All will is suddenly now really free will?
In the Christian religion, christians are expecting to do the acts that God requires of them. Salvation through action [ granted there are some who believe in pre-determinism in which they already think they are going to heaven but that itself is another debate and I think astoundingly presumpuous ] Perhaps you have heard the idiom that christians are ‘doing the will of God.’ [ I have several biblical passages demanding such behavior ] Therefore you state that angels have a more perfected will then humans, perhaps, but here is the kicker. If man is suppose to be doing the will of God through humanistic will [ and we can say no if we so desire ] and we have imperfect will then an angel who has perfect will is constantly doing the will of God and therefore has no free will of its own because it does not suffer from imperfection and is always doing the will of God. And yet again I ask why God needs humans or angels to enact his/her/its will.
Let’s assume you’re right. Why are you right? How do you categorize some actions as natural and others as unnatural? How do you categorize some as good and some as bad? What objective criteria is there for the categorizations?
If murder was universal (and therefore in the nature of man), we would not exist. Simple.
The action itself is neither natural or unnatural. It is the existence of the tendency, the necessity of it, and the universality that characterizes nature.
Are you serious? For a student you have an incredibly short memory.
Wrong. We can stop living completely naturally (i.e. old age), I don’t think nature perverts nature, people don’t just choose to age or get cancer, the “will” to die is also involuntary. Further if one chooses to speed up that natural process I don’t think they’ve countered their own will in any way, they’ve fulfilled it.
See above.
You could have just thought this and not responded at all a day or so ago, as you’re just not getting it.
Scroll down to involuntary action at this site. Learn some physiology. Maybe you’ll take note of some anatomy too. Then go here to learn voluntary action.
I see you don’t even realize that’s humans have free-will. I see you have no biological understanding of humans. We have voluntary and involuntary actions.
You see where I disagree with your statement - that we can’t stop living unless we make ourselves stop (read 1. then 2. ). Then I explain why (4.) and you say that no you are right (.3) but then go on to completely agree (.5)
Dying is completely natural, as you say involuntary, that’s the entire correction I was making, you saying it can only occur when a person comes up with reasons is completely and utterly wrong. It will occur regardless.
When hasn’t the choice to kill oneself also been present? You’re so confused and have bounced so far off topic. Apparently you think that is the only way for one to die (besides boulders or murderers, that is.) The question is (now) whether its really such a perversion for one to voluntarily die, even though they will die involuntarily regardless. Using a different example, by your bizarre logic, forcing oneself to blink is to counter ones own will.
Honestly, is English your first language?
(emphasise my own)
I’ve actually explained this multiple times now. Take some time to read.
No you don’t. There is a mental shortcoming occuring and occuring and occuring and… Got the premise wrong (admittedly), wrong about Aquinas, confused now…Bounce, e’bounce, e’bounce…
No. Natural death is an involuntary action. A person comes up with reasons to die such as when I stated “suicide” or “murder”. Suicide and murder do not occur “regardless” cause they are voluntary actions, unless, as I’ve stated repeatedly it can be somehow proved that the person lost their mind, in other words, they are insane and had no decision making abilities/reason to begin with as they committed the act. Thus, as I stated numerous times too, what is on trial is the judgement of the innocent until proven guilty person.
And so? Those generated by free-will are voluntary actions, such as blinking ones eyes.
He was referring to Angels having free-will, and how I misrepresented Aquinas on that subject. At least I know when to admit when I incorrectly provided a position, in this case Aquinas on angels. It’s not as if I know if angels exist let alone if they have free-will. You meanwhile can’t fess up to your lack of understanding or else you wouldn’t be asking me questions. Are you talking about angels having free-will or not now? You are being intellectually dishonest.
Hoppe’s self-ownership principle can logically derive many versions of homestead principles. It does not necessarily limit itself to a non-proviso Lockean homestead principle. For example, Hoppe’s self-ownership principle can logically derive the anarcho-communist “possession” principle, the Proudhonian usufruct homestead principle, or the Tuckerite absentee ownership principle, without invalidating neither his self-ownership principle nor Aristotelian logic. Hoppe has arbitrarily chosen his non-proviso Lockean homestead principle, even though he can logically derive the three others.
A person must possess his brain and vocal chords in order to survive and argue with others. However, this does not necessarily imply that the same person has the right to own his entire body. Because many versions of the homestead principle can logically follow from his self-ownership principle, the self-ownership principle can logically derive a homestead principle that confines the person to homestead his entire body. This version has similarity to the Lockean proviso because it allows others to share the person’s body just like how the Lockean proviso allows others to have a more equal share of property.
I don’t think right to self-ownership (different from the fact of property in one’s self) derives from possession of brain and vocal chords, so to that extent, you are right. A right, in order to be a just right, must be universal. Obviously everyone doesn’t own each other at all times in all places regardless of circumstance, so the the right to as much is null.
