Posted on 09/02/2004 10:10:00 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day
Are all humans, regardless of culture, faith or denomination privy to knowing God's truth? Is there such a thing as Universal Truth, that one can come to know even without the Bible? All thoughtful comments are welcome...
You may be right. This article, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with that fringe group.
read later
On the contrary. This GRPL member found it to be an interesting read. I also happened to noticed that the author has read and mentions Augustine.
I did find the following statement interesting:
"...but that is what natural law is: Common moral sense...
I've always went by the adage of Ben Franklin who said, "The trouble with common sense is that it's not too common."
While the author makes some interesting points I had some problems with the underlying premise. What then ARE those moral laws everyone has and how do you distinguish it from "surface conscience"? Do headhunters or cannibals feel a "moral law" of not killing and just suppress it? Did Enron senior managers feel a twinge of guilt but suppress it while they were stealing the retirement funds of millions. Or, better yet, has their natural law conscience bothered them enough to give the money back. Then again, to use a biblical example, were the citizens of Sodom just suppressing their natural law tendencies in favor of living a corrupt life style?
To ensure I didn't miss anything I reviewed some other websites about this. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a non-Calvinistic site) apparently had the same types of concerns. They said:
"The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent.
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This isn't theology. This is philosophy.
Good points. I often think that Islamists know, inherently, innately, that blowing up innocent men, women and childrens in skyscrapers, pizza parlors and crosstown buses is WRONG, is the breaking of a Universal Natural Law...but they have chosen to suppress their conscience in favor of their man-made cultural command to kill in the name of jihad.
Yes, it can be a fine line to determine what is a God-given instinct and what is man-made.
The problem I have with Natural Law theory is the a priori assumption that even if Man's will is fallen, Man's intellect and reason is not fallen, except maybe fallen by way of disinformation. Thus, "Natural Law" leads to the conclusion that it is possible for fallen men to accurately and truthfully know, understand, and apply the "laws" of Creation, apart from the Creator - and thus eliminate any knowledge of said Creator as a necessity for properly understanding history, science, law, and ultimately creation itself. Antitheistic, rebellious "science" becomes "neutral", safe science, and antitheistic scientists become our trusted priests and prophets, leading the way through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
Or you get safe, antitheistic pablum like Stephen Covey's Seven Habits of Highly Effective People which is founded on the assertion that the universe is governed by "principles" and not by a Creator.
Having lived among that culture for a while I would disagree. As difficult as it is from our cultural perspective, there are people (not all) who have no qualms about the taking of human life especially if there is great hatred-not only in Islam but here in the United States. But do these people feel ANY type of moral conscience that is just surpressed? If so it is so far surpress that it isn't showing even to them. They're just serial killers who kill and want to kill again.
If everybody's value system was somewhat consistent then natural law could possibly be argued. Unfortunately, people's value systems are NOT consistent. Different cultures have different rights and wrongs from which their laws are based. Consider Sodom:
Gen 19:9 But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors.
They didn't like anyone telling them what to do. They looked at Lot as being judgmental. For us to say that, "Oh, they really KNEW what they were doing was wrong but it was just surpress." is kind of crazy in my mind. There was no talk about considering Lot's proposal. They knew precisely what they were doing.
The more I think about natural law, the less I agree with the concept.
Thanks for posting this article that should be of great interest for both Protestants and Catholics. J. Budziszewski is one of the best and soundest philosophers working today. He makes a lot of great points in this interview. Although he is a Protestant, his philosophical position is closer to the Catholic one. For those who say, "The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is no evangelical mind," Budziszewski is in the forefront of working on that situation.
This is only one school of natural law theory. Other natural law theorists hold that natural law is a participation in divine law, and thus believe that any attempts to separate natural law theory from God will go astray. See Russell Hittinger's _The First Grace_.
Natural law can be discovered by the application of reason, this is a purpose that God gave reason to us for.
One must be careful when discussing the 'conscience', it is only a properly informed conscience that is useful.
ARTICLE 6
MORAL CONSCIENCE
1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. . . . For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47
I. THE JUDGMENT OF CONSCIENCE
1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:
Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.50
1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection:
Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.51
1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.
1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:
We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52
1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55
III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one's neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.
1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
IN BRIEF
1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths" (GS 16).
1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.
1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.
1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.
1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#1783
1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its promises, worthy of love.
1951 Law is a rule of conduct enacted by competent authority for the sake of the common good. The moral law presupposes the rational order, established among creatures for their good and to serve their final end, by the power, wisdom, and goodness of the Creator. All law finds its first and ultimate truth in the eternal law. Law is declared and established by reason as a participation in the providence of the living God, Creator and Redeemer of all. "Such an ordinance of reason is what one calls law."2
Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.3
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law, for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."4
I. THE NATURAL MORAL LAW
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1955 The "divine and natural" law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
1957 Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds men among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.
1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history;10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:
Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.11
1959 The natural law, the Creator's very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices. It also provides the indispensable moral foundation for building the human community. Finally, it provides the necessary basis for the civil law with which it is connected, whether by a reflection that draws conclusions from its principles, or by additions of a positive and juridical nature.
1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12 The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.
II. THE OLD LAW
1961 God, our Creator and Redeemer, chose Israel for himself to be his people and revealed his Law to them, thus preparing for the coming of Christ. The Law of Moses expresses many truths naturally accessible to reason. These are stated and authenticated within the covenant of salvation.
1962 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed Law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments. The precepts of the Decalogue lay the foundations for the vocation of man fashioned in the image of God; they prohibit what is contrary to the love of God and neighbor and prescribe what is essential to it. The Decalogue is a light offered to the conscience of every man to make God's call and ways known to him and to protect him against evil:
God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts.13
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a "law of concupiscence" in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.
1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. "The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy of things to come."17 It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New Testament with images, "types," and symbols for expressing the life according to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the Kingdom of heaven.
There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law. Conversely, there exist carnal men under the New Covenant still distanced from the perfection of the New Law: the fear of punishment and certain temporal promises have been necessary, even under the New Covenant, to incite them to virtuous works. In any case, even though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's charity has been poured into our hearts."18
III. THE NEW LAW OR THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL
1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19
1966 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given to the faithful through faith in Christ. It works through charity; it uses the Sermon on the Mount to teach us what must be done and makes use of the sacraments to give us the grace to do it:
If anyone should meditate with devotion and perspicacity on the sermon our Lord gave on the mount, as we read in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, he will doubtless find there . . . the perfect way of the Christian life. . . . This sermon contains . . . all the precepts needed to shape one's life.20
1967 The Law of the Gospel "fulfills," refines, surpasses, and leads the Old Law to its perfection.21 In the Beatitudes, the New Law fulfills the divine promises by elevating and orienting them toward the "kingdom of heaven." It is addressed to those open to accepting this new hope with faith - the poor, the humble, the afflicted, the pure of heart, those persecuted on account of Christ and so marks out the surprising ways of the Kingdom.
1968 The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity.23
1969 The New Law practices the acts of religion: almsgiving, prayer and fasting, directing them to the "Father who sees in secret," in contrast with the desire to "be seen by men."24 Its prayer is the Our Father.25
1970 The Law of the Gospel requires us to make the decisive choice between "the two ways" and to put into practice the words of the Lord.26 It is summed up in the Golden Rule, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; this is the law and the prophets."27
The entire Law of the Gospel is contained in the "new commandment" of Jesus, to love one another as he has loved us.28
1971 To the Lord's Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord's teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church.30
1972 The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31
1973 Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God's commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it.32
1974 The evangelical counsels manifest the living fullness of charity, which is never satisfied with not giving more. They attest its vitality and call forth our spiritual readiness. The perfection of the New Law consists essentially in the precepts of love of God and neighbor. The counsels point out the more direct ways, the readier means, and are to be practiced in keeping with the vocation of each:
[God] does not want each person to keep all the counsels, but only those appropriate to the diversity of persons, times, opportunities, and strengths, as charity requires; for it is charity, as queen of all virtues, all commandments, all counsels, and, in short, of all laws and all Christian actions that gives to all of them their rank, order, time, and value.33
IN BRIEF
1975 According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil.
1976 "Law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by the one who is in charge of the community" (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II, 90, 4).
1977 Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the justice of God.
1978 The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.
1979 The natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. It is a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law.
1980 The Old Law is the first stage of revealed law. Its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.
1981 The Law of Moses contains many truths naturally accessible to reason. God has revealed them because men did not read them in their hearts.
1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression above all in the Lord's Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to communicate grace to us.
1984 The Law of the Gospel fulfills and surpasses the Old Law and brings it to perfection: its promises, through the Beatitudes of the Kingdom of heaven; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of human acts.
1985 The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.
1986 Besides its precepts the New Law includes the evangelical counsels. "The Church's holiness is fostered in a special way by the manifold counsels which the Lord proposes to his disciples in the Gospel" (LG 42 § 2).
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm#1955
But won't these same murderers resist being murdered? They'll treat their own murder as wrong in principle, even if they don't treat others' murders that way. Their resistance suggests they are conscious of the wrongness of murder, even if they don't apply that principle consistenly.
I think you might be underestimating the human capacity for moral knowledge. To paraphrase Augustine, even a gang of pirates has a certain sort of justice--otherwise their gang would dissolve in an orgy of self-destruction.
Your point about hatred gives a bit of insight into how a natural law theorist might respond to your critique. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a natural law against murder which can be captured in the statement: "the direct taking of innocent human life is always wrong." Now because of extreme hatred or bad philosophy or bad religion, Jihad Joe thinks it's OK to crash planes into American skyscrapers. Why does he think so? It's not because he thinks taking innocent life is good. He thinks it's good because in his mind all Americans are evil, enemies of Allah, supporters of Israel. Read bin-Laden's statements, he doesn't say "let's kill off as many innocent people as we can," in his view Americans are collaborators with Satan who should be either destroyed or converted to Islam.
Some people here seem to think that Natural law theorists believe that human reason is infallible and always right, such that humans' innate understanding of the natural law is always rightly applied. This is far more than any such theorist would claim. Human reason can be clouded by sin, runaway emotions, and error. That doesn't mean there are no self-evident principles of moral reasoning.
Interesting post from Catechism. I'm quite sure the Founders believed quite strongly in Natural Law when developing our fledgling republic's system of government.
That whole "truths to be self-evident" thing...
Very well said. I feel strongly that there is a natural law that transcends cultures, yet people don't always abide by the natural law--just as they don't always abide by man-made laws.
How can you prove that it is because of extreme hatred or bad philosophy or bad religion that Jihad Joe thinks it's OK to crash planes into American skyscrapers? How do you know that he has the same moral perspective as you but is just horribly misguided? What's worst, how do YOU know that crashing planes isn't the RIGHT thing to do and it's YOUR moral perspective that is messed up? If this sounds far fetch a lot of people and churches in the world today believe capital punishment is wrong. What is the moral law for that?
These are rhetorical questions and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to make a point, as the philosophers did, that if you took ten religious figures from ten different cultures (even the same culture) and asked them to compose a list of natural laws you'd get 10 different lists. Who would say the "Christian" viewpoint is correct out of those 10 lists?
God gave us the Bible and the Laws so we WOULD have a list. I doubt if you'd put a bunch of theologians in a room if you would come up with the the 10 commandments. Certainly our justice system doesn't seem to think so.
Natural law seems to me to be something to talk over around the water cooler but is impossible to know if it even exist. All indications are that it does not. We have the written 10 commandments and we want to discard them. Why would we think these would be ingrained in us?
It's pretty tough to prove hatred, but bad philosophy or bad religion are much easier to prove than emotion, because they can be better expressed in words and concepts which can be weighed against themselves(for self-consistency) and various self-evident truths and, if we share the same religion, the truths of revelation.
Now if you insist that there are no self-evident, shared truths across cultural or religious divisions, I'll again cite Augustine on the justice present among pirates. Though their sense of justice is woefully limited, being the justice only necessary for their survival, even this basic kind of justice is a good that transcends merely particular group interest: nobody likes being murdered. You pirates don't kill us, we civilized folk won't kill you.
What's worst, how do YOU know that crashing planes isn't the RIGHT thing to do and it's YOUR moral perspective that is messed up?
Let's get this back to the general principle I was defending, "the direct taking of innocent human life is wrong." I would say this is true by definition: an innocent person is by definition not guilty of a punishment, and thus doesn't deserve death, an objective evil. But I think I can anticipate your objection: Why think death is an evil? Might death not be good in some cases, where you're actually doing somebody a favor by killing him and freeing him from his miserable life? Isn't all this life-affirming silliness a product of Christianity? Maybe the gnostics were right, and the body is really a prison for the soul. Mass murder is really mass liberation!
Let's say for a moment that life really is an objective evil. Even if that were the case, one cannot take away something from somebody without his permission: you don't have clear title to another man's life. (Neither does the individual have clear title to his own life, one reason why suicide is morally problematic). I could go on and try to prove that having a title to something is a part of justice, but I think I've proven what I set out to do.
These are rhetorical questions and I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm just trying to make a point, as the philosophers did, that if you took ten religious figures from ten different cultures (even the same culture) and asked them to compose a list of natural laws you'd get 10 different lists.
I would argue there would be considerable overlap between those lists. You'd definitely get the bare minimum "pirate justice" necessary for the maintenance of society. People who have a death wish are few, and whole cultures with a death wish have already gone extinct.
Since you've brought up the Bible, may I point out to you that,as Budsizewski noted, St. Paul talks about the natural law? See Romans 2:13-16:
For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Budziszewski: I wish you had not put it that way! Too many people think that acknowledging the claims of reason means denying the claims of revelation. I do not see it that way at all. Think of the matter like this. God has made some things known to all human beings; these are general revelation. He has also made additional things known to the community of faith; these are special revelation. Natural law is about general revelation, not special revelation. However, a Christian natural-law thinker will make use of special revelation to illuminate general revelation—and will use God-given reasoning powers to understand them both.
YES! YES! YES! This is what my priest always says about the differences between Protestants, Roman Catholics and Anglican Catholics, how it is like a three legged stool :
Protestant : one leg, FAITH
Roman Catholic : two leg, FAITH and TRADITION
Anglican Catholic : three leg, FAITH, TRADITION, and REASON
I am forever amazed that within the Christian community there is this automatic assumption that God does not exist within reason, that the heart can never meet with the brain.
Thank you for posting this!
I like this statement, although I don't necessarily find it much of a problem. The thing I thought of in reading this was the Jewish mystical tradition of the Tree of Life and the Sephora ie that God manifests himself in various ways, and that it is impossible for man to utterly know him completely and in total because of our fallen nature.
Not sure if that is what you were speaking to, but that was what popped up in my mind.
Are you boiling down Natural Law into one thing-the taking of innocent human life? I had a broader scope in mind which I think you do to.
But let's assume that Natural Law ONLY encompasses the taking of human life. Your pirate analogy ("You pirates don't kill us, we civilized folk won't kill you.") indeed sounds strange coming from the pirate's perspective ("You civilized folk don't kill us, we pirates won't kill you.") The cultural differences is apparent. How do you know the "civilized" folks are much more in tune to their Natural Law then the pirate folks? Just because you happen to agree with the civilized folks doesn't mean your Natural Law self isn't skewed as well.
My point is without some clear guidance, our moral compass is skewed. The Gnostic might have been right had not God given us His word. While Moses was up on Mount Sinai and God was writing the tablets, the children of Israel (Aaron included who should have known better) was making golden calves, breaking the laws even as God was writing them-Ex 32. They didn't exhibit any Natural Law so why would you think we are any better then they and have an innate sense of Natural Law? God could have just said, "follow your conscience".
I was wondering when that verse in Romans would turn up. Indeed those:
"Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them"
This isn't about a Natural Law that mankind can and should aspire to. The law Paul talks about does not justify, it condemns.
Rom 3:19-20 "Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. "
It is there to condemn-to show that no matter how hard we try we CANNOT live by it. I'm afraid I would have to post most of Romans but consider:
Rom 2:20-22 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
Rom 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,"
The law God gave us in our hearts was not one in which mankind could aspire to. It was one in which revealed our sinful self. This is not a law we can live by. If there was Natural Law Paul would say "you who preach that one shall not steal, listen to your inner self."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.