Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Natural law..........ain't so natural.

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 2:07:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I have being going into some more detail on "natural law", in part spurn by the debate by Contradiction and Writer Dave, and the all too common claim that homosexaulity and/or gay marriage is "unatural"

Why do I say natural law ain't so natural ? cause in this version of natural law, the use of a man made object (eg glasses) although "unnatural" is said not be against ahem "natural law".

What is natural does not always mean it is good, and conversely what is unnatural (that is to say man made) doesn't always mean it wrong. As such why even bother calling it natural law ? I dunno.

Most try to argue that in nature there is "proper function" and thus "improper function". Take a guess which side people claim the a homosexual act falls on ? For those of you living under a rock the answer would be improper.

Two problems arise......

1) Can a proper function of X exist without external teleology ? In lay mans terms, if something exists that is not intended to be that way, is it even possible that it is contrary to some function ? isn't it even coherent to ask what the proper function of something is which exists that is not part of an intended plan ?

If no, one has to argue that a creator INTENDED for something in nature to be that way. Usually it just asserted that an intelligent creator of some natural part of the world exists and that creator wants X and doesn't want Y.

Aherm, God hates homos......true story.

2) Some do claim that proper function of X exist even in the absence of X not being part of an intended goal.

Usually the argument goes something like the heart pumps blood, therefore the PROPER function of the heart is to pump blood. But can we logically deduce the PROPER function of X just because X can do Y ? It may seem reasonable but consider where it get us.

It could be said that the Ebola virus kills kiddies in africa, therefore the PROPER function of the Ebola virus is to kill kiddies in africa.

The reason I don't believe this to be the case is because as I said before you can't deduced that just because X produces Y therefore the Proper function of X is to produce Y.

Can a sex act produce a baby ? yes. Does that mean that is it proper function ? no.

As such it can't be said on this basis that a homosexual act can't produce a baby that therefore a homosexual act is improper.

I am sure some natural ain't so natural law theorists will have something to say on that matter. :)
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 8:41:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"2) Some do claim that proper function of X exist even in the absence of X not being part of an intended goal.

Usually the argument goes something like the heart pumps blood, therefore the PROPER function of the heart is to pump blood. But can we logically deduce the PROPER function of X just because X can do Y ? It may seem reasonable but consider where it get us."That clearly depends on our knowledge of the function of heart, heart may be doing other necessary things that we ignore.

"It could be said that the Ebola virus kills kiddies in africa, therefore the PROPER function of the Ebola virus is to kill kiddies in africa."The proper function of the virus is to destroy cells or organs, this can lead to death.."The reason I don't believe this to be the case is because as I said before you can't deduced that just because X produces Y therefore the Proper function of X is to produce Y."<em>Look I think you have to put it this way: if Y is naturally produced only through X , then X proper function is to produce Y."Can a sex act produce a baby ? yes. Does that mean that is it proper function ? no"Then you should say babies are naturally produced only trough sex, therefore sex proper function is to produce babies.
CanWeKnow
Posts: 217
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 9:10:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
That's because people try to play "Natural Law" in place of "As It Exists In Nature". As you have pointed out, we can not derive the sole functionality or purpose of something from it's natural products.

Of course when I say nature, I mean plants, animals, and rocks.

Natural Law is at work IN nature, but Natural Law is not nature itself.

The people who use Natural Law in such a way are misrepresenting what Natural Law actually stands for.

During a recent debate between Contradiction and Honestdiscussioner there was a similar argument being made. Contradiction defined marriage as implicitly between one man and one woman and then proceeded to use this definition throughout his debate to prove why same sex marriage is wrong.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:14:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are multiple problems with natural law. However, most people make common misconceptions, the most obvious ones being:

The level of reductionism/holism. There is no moral purpose of the heart, nor is there a moral purpose of the penis. Only humans and human communities have a moral purpose, and only the human ought to fulfill his end.

Natural Law says 'do X'. There are multiple natural laws - that is, there are many variants of it. As Aquinas accepts, the atheist, or the non-ethical monotheist, will have a different natural law to that of the Christian.

Variant of Natural Law Y says "everyone should always do X". Again, Natural Law, while quite strongly fixed in its categorical absolutism, is not that rigid. Aquinas for example considered feudalism to be the natural order, but few would argue for a return to feudalism. Moreover, different people have different roles in a community and therefore have different responsibilities, Aquinas and others argued. People have different moral roles.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 9:31:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:44:08 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Even if something is "unnatural", that doesn't make it immoral. This is why Natural Law arguments are embarrassing.

That's because there is some equivocation going on, some people use natural one way some another.

There is natural in the sense that is it not man made & unnatural in the sense of man made objects (eg: glasses)

Then there is natural when it is said to support/enhance with proper function that exists in nature :eg glasses help the eye see

So glasses can be natural in one sense and unnatural in another.

I think they need to ditch the whole natural thing there. Or maybe they need such equivocation to make their arguments work in light of objections......wink wink.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:02:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Contradiction would object to the fact that I did not ejacu-late inside a vagina last night, but rather on the girl's stomach. I would like to extend my deepest apologies.

Apparently ejacu-late is a profanity. Seriously, go f*ck yourself DDO developers.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:10:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 10:02:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Contradiction would object to the fact that I did not ejacu-late inside a vagina last night, but rather on the girl's stomach. I would like to extend my deepest apologies.

Apparently ejacu-late is a profanity. Seriously, go f*ck yourself DDO developers.

At least we can still say penis! Considering all the things we can't say anymore, I suppose I'll what I can get.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:28:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 10:02:49 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Contradiction would object to the fact that I did not ejacu-late inside a vagina last night, but rather on the girl's stomach. I would like to extend my deepest apologies.

Apparently ejacu-late is a profanity. Seriously, go f*ck yourself DDO developers.

Well see what you did was "unnatural". Even though you E-JACK-U-LATE which is "natural" never the less the manner in which you did was "unnatural"

The proper function of your penis when you E-JACK-U-LATE is to do so into a vagina. You delibertly took steps to preven that, thus your impeded the proper function of the penis.

I hope you are proud of your self.

Remember kids, if you E JACK U LATE, its gotta be inside a vagina.

This message was bought to you by Natural law, if it ain't natural its wrong, except when its not.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:42:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 8:41:32 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
"2) Some do claim that proper function of X exist even in the absence of X not being part of an intended goal.

Usually the argument goes something like the heart pumps blood, therefore the PROPER function of the heart is to pump blood. But can we logically deduce the PROPER function of X just because X can do Y ? It may seem reasonable but consider where it get us."That clearly depends on our knowledge of the function of heart, heart may be doing other necessary things that we ignore.

"It could be said that the Ebola virus kills kiddies in africa, therefore the PROPER function of the Ebola virus is to kill kiddies in africa."The proper function of the virus is to destroy cells or organs, this can lead to death.."The reason I don't believe this to be the case is because as I said before you can't deduced that just because X produces Y therefore the Proper function of X is to produce Y."<em>Look I think you have to put it this way: if Y is naturally produced only through X , then X proper function is to produce Y."Can a sex act produce a baby ? yes. Does that mean that is it proper function ? no"Then you should say babies are naturally produced only trough sex, therefore sex proper function is to produce babies.

"if Y is naturally produced only through X , then X proper function is to produce Y"

See here is part of the problem, you are now using "natural" in the non man made sense, which is contrary to how the natural law theorist uses the term "natural".

Y is naturally (non man made) produced only though X....

But even if granted does this establish the proper function of Y ? I don't think so.

At best it may tell us that in nature (to the best of our knowledge) that Y only occurs via X, but it doesn't tell us that means that Y is "proper" or "good" or what ever.

Naturalistic fallacy ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12