Those who claim the “independence of reason and mind,” who claim that “the mind discovers, not creates, the laws of logic (in the normative sense),” who claim that “reason exists outside the mind,” who claim that “intrinsic properties exist independently of our thinking,” and who claim that “essences exist independently of our senses,” should learn that our ‘senses’ do not reflect the structure of ‘reality’. Although we should ‘reject’ the “realist/idealist” dichotomy, the “reflectionist/impositionist” dichotomy, the “physicalist/phenomenalist” dichotomy, the “objectivist/subjectivist” dichotomy, the “essentialist/nominalist” dichotomy, the “cognitivist/non-cognitivist” dichotomy, the “rationalist/empiricist” dichotomy, and the “a priori/a posteriori” dichotomy out of the mere ambiguity of the labels; we should nevertheless take account of how the ‘senses’ do not actually reflect the actual structure of ‘reality’, of how “the map is not the territory,” and of how our ‘senses’ only ‘perceive’ a biased aspect of ‘reality’.
Our universe is composed of random interactions between sub-atomic particles—quarks, leptons, photons, etc. However, we can ‘conceive’ objects beyond that because our ‘senses’ are designed to match specific patterns and arrangements of those particles. The universe is just a random collection of particles interacting randomly and chaotically. However, our ‘mind’ and ‘senses’ “de-randomize” those particles because the sensory receptors are evolved to detect consistencies, correlations, structures, causality, etc. We ‘discover’ the order, consistency, and the laws of the universe merely because our ‘mind’ and ‘senses’ finds patterns.
The law of non-contradiction presupposes that the human ‘senses’ ‘perceive’ objects beyond the elementary particles. Without human ‘sensation’, an apple is a mere collection of subatomic particles, and an orange is a mere collection of subatomic particles. When we say “the apple does not contradict itself in the sense that apples will not suddenly turn into oranges,” we are merely talking of how our ‘mind’ and ‘senses’ separate the “collection of particles in the apple” with the “collection of particles in the orange.” Therefore, the “law of non-contradiction” (in the descriptive sense) is just a description that “two ideas within the mind do not contradict with each other.”
We should take account that the laws of logic, mathematics, and ethics have two meanings: one in the descriptive sense, and the other in the normative sense. Those who conflate the descriptive with the normative senses lack an understanding between the descriptive explanation of the rules of language and instrumental application of the laws of logic. How can we logically deduce that we should apply the normative law of non-contradiction from our description that the “objects within the universe do not contradict themselves”? That sounds just as absurd as “we should prescribe the law of gravity (as a normative law of logic) from our description of the idea that ‘objects tend to attract one another’.”
To remain consistent, only solution is to separate the two meanings of the laws of logic. The laws of logic, in the descriptive sense, means the idea that “an idea either exists ordoes not exist” or “two ideas within the mind do not contradict with each other.” The laws of logic, in the normative sense, means that the laws of logic are useful for human reason, and that humans created or invented the laws of logic as mere tools for sound reasoning.
Some people believe that our ‘perceptions’ of the laws of logic, mathematics, and ethics—in the normative senses—reflect the structure of ‘reality’. As we have shown above, the laws of logic—in the normative sense—are mere human creations useful for sound reasoning. We will claim otherwise:
‘Reason’ does not presuppose the law of identity.
‘Reason’ does not presuppose the law of the excluded middle.
‘Reason’ does not presuppose the law of non-contradiction.
Therefore, ‘reason’ does not presuppose ‘natural law’ ethics.
Some will detract our above claims by defending Hoppe’s In Defense of Extreme Rationalism or asserting that “communication necessitates both sides to presuppose the law of identity.” However, the use of the laws of logic does not require communication between two persons. For example, Robinson Crusoe can apply the laws of logic for reasoning by himself.
Also, we can communicate with one another by means others than language. For example, we can communicate with one another by techlepathy or merging multiple brains into one.
We should not confuse ourselves by asserting that “‘natural law’ ethics cannot ‘exist’ in the non-metaphysical sense.” For instance, we can assume ‘natural law’ ethics as ‘true’ and apply it into the real-world.
In addition, we should not assume that “natural rights can only exist if natural law exists,” nor assume that “rights can only exist if natural rights exist.” We can still logically believe in ‘rights’ even if we disbelieve in ‘natural rights’ or ‘natural law’.
I know that this is a rambling, but I have disproven the metaphysical existence of the normative ‘natural law’ ethics.