The Natural Law is What We Naturally Know

"Look, you are attacking a straw man of your own construction. St. Paul taught that one's "inner self" was fallen and had to be formed by God working through His church, body mind and soul. That's just what Christian natural law theorists believe."

I'm puzzled by your statement here. From what I've read natural law theorists believe that in every person there exist some sort of God instilled moral law. What you're saying, if I'm interpreting your above statement correctly, that although man is fallen God instills natural law in man through the church. Is this correct? These seem to be different definitions in how natural law exist.

From what I've read natural law theorists believe that in every person there exist some sort of God instilled moral law. What you're saying, if I'm interpreting your above statement correctly, that although man is fallen God instills natural law in man through the church. Is this correct?

Let me clarify even further: I agree that there is a moral law, or at least the first principles of moral law which are accessible to every person who uses reason rightly. I do not think that this means every person will reason rightly.

I do not take the fallen nature of mankind to be such that it precludes individual innate knowledge of some first moral principles. In my understanding, The Fall precludes mankind's access to salvific grace in such a way that only God can restore that access.

I don't see how the Fall precludes man's access to all moral knowledge--though I will grant that the Fall significantly clouds his reasoning. Because of his clouded understanding, each man needs to check his reasoning against the reasoning of those wiser than himself and against the wisdom of the church.

Man using his God-given intellect can grasp the first principles of logic and of math. Why then not the first principles of morals?

"Because of his clouded understanding, each man needs to check his reasoning against the reasoning of those wiser than himself and against the wisdom of the church. Man using his God-given intellect can grasp the first principles of logic and of math. Why then not the first principles of morals?

I believe this is exactly what those opposed to natural law would argue with you on. How does a man "checking" his reasoning determine who is "wiser than himself"? If man is corrupted how do you determine who has greater understanding? What do you base your evaluation on in a corrupted state?

In your example of logic and math, these are not something that comes natural to all people. Why should we think the first principles of morals? While math is more rigid (although some people cannot grasp math), logical thought could rightly go down different paths. The conclusion Socrates came to might not be the same conclusion Plato came to. Whose right? Those who disagree with natural law would say that your argument proves that natural law is nothing more than ethics taught and developed in a child, just like logic and math.

I shouldn't be so hasty to just completely dismiss natural law. However, this to me, logically speaking, is an unprovable hypothesis. ;O)

How does a man "checking" his reasoning determine who is "wiser than himself"? If man is corrupted how do you determine who has greater understanding? What do you base your evaluation on in a corrupted state?

Well the qualities of wisdom necessary for thinking rightly are evident in a man's ability to rule, especially to rule himself. Indeed, if a man does not rule himself, but is ruled by lust or gluttony or hatred, we may safely say that he is not wise--for vices like those impair one's ability to rule. The author of the book of Wisdom links knowledge of wisdom with both the virtue of love and other, more disciplinary virtues of rulership. Speaking in the voice of King Solomon, he writes:

Resplendent and unfading is Wisdom, and she is readily perceived by those who love her, and found by those who seek her. She hastens to make herself known in anticipation of men's desire; he who watches for her at dawn shall not be disappointed, for he shall find her sitting by his gate. For taking thought of her is the perfection of prudence, and he who for her sake keeps vigil shall quickly be free from care; Because she makes her own rounds, seeking those worthy of her, and graciously appears to them in the ways, and meets them with all solicitude. For the first step toward discipline is a very earnest desire for her; then, care for discipline is love of her; love means the keeping of her laws; To observe her laws is the basis for incorruptibility; and incorruptibility makes one close to God; thus the desire for Wisdom leads up to a kingdom. If, then, you find pleasure in throne and scepter, you princes of the peoples, honor Wisdom, that you may reign as kings forever.
-Wisdom 6:12-21

We even get a nice listing of four virtues in Wisdom 8:7 "Or if one loves justice, the fruits of her works are virtues; For she teaches moderation and prudence, justice and fortitude, and nothing in life is more useful for men than these."

This means a couple of things: you can actually rule out quite a few people as fools, or at least take note of their imperfect virtue and compensate accordingly. Second, natural law theory is best presented within the context of an ethics of virtue. Third, since no governments or persons can entirely lack these virtues mentioned here and survive as free states and free men, we've found a few more first principles of moral reasoning that are "common to all" and transcend time and culture. Hence I've proven, hopefully to your satisfaction, the existence of a few more principles of natural law.

However, this to me, logically speaking, is an unprovable hypothesis. ;O)

What do you mean by proof? I get the feeling you're trying to hold me to a standard of mathematical certainty, where I have to answer questions like "But what if we're brains in vats fooled by mad scientists and deceitful demons?" when all I'm going for is a standard of moral certitude, namely beyond reasonable doubt. Can you reasonably doubt that moderation is a prerequisite for good moral reasoning? I think you can't, any more than one could reasonably doubt that temperance is a prerequisite for good government of oneself and of one's society.

"actually thought about adding the formation of conscience to my post and should have.( "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".) Thanks for your insight."

I think a misunderstanding of natural law leads to the present error where people think "they know right and wrong" because their conscience tells them so, they mistake feel-good emotionalism for justification. I think there is certainly some basic understanding of right and wrong written on the human heart - others here have mentioned murder or theft as universally prohibited behaviors but to examine just those two examples I think we find it's not so clear cut.

I don't think I'd get any argument here if I were to call abortion murder, however do to so in many contexts is to invite argument. Somewhere between 40% and 50% of Americans and large majorities in other countries do not see abortion as a case of the prohibition against murder. Many cultures have engaged in human sacrifice and we continue to today to argue the merits of capital punishment, so obviously it's not as clear cut as some think.

I don't think I'd get any argument here if I called confiscatory tax rates theft, but since we have them and in fact ours are some of the lowest in the Western world, obviously a majority or at least a large plurality in ours and those countries disagree.

So how do we determine the finer points of morality?

For the Catholic the answer is simple - the unchanging, infallible teachings of Holy Mother Church. She brings us to life in Baptism, strengthens us in Confirmation, picks us up when we fall in Confession and Penance, nourishes us in the Eurcharist and prepares us for our own death in annointing of the sick.

Along the way, like any good parent she teaches us right from wrong and enjoins us to choose the right.

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.