A foray into talking about prostitution
#11
(07-12-2018, 08:16 PM)GRA Wrote: @ George: Thanks for the reply.

There's a link in the OP where a discussion on morals and morality was created. Take a look if you have the time.

You're welcome, GRA. Hopefully I wasn't "rambling" too much.

There's too many comments at Reddit to read!

It partly became a theist versus non-theist debate on what's the foundation to morality/ethics. That’s a tricky area of philosophy. While I think Catholics have to take the view that morality is of course ultimately grounded in God, Thomist philosophers would make a distinction between ultimate and proximate causes. Edward Feser (and others) would argue that natural law philosophy doesn't per se need to appeal to God. Just as we can study physics without appealing to God, we can study ethics likewise. However, everything ultimately or metaphysically depends upon God.

Anyway, that's getting too much on a tangent.

Man has reason. We shouldn't give atheists too much credit: natural law philosophy is not based on an argument from authority.


***

I agree with jovan66102 that it's a "two way street." Government laws influence people and their ideas; that's surely correct. However, wouldn't the culture, ultimately, be primary in its determination? Governments and governmental laws depend upon a public that, in some way, at least tacitly consent to it. For example, if public consent absolutely vanished, the government would. The government derives its powers and tax money from civil society. If, for example, the culture stopped believing in X, it would be difficult for the government to enforce X in the long-run. Does that make sense?

So, while it's a "two way street" of influence, it's not of symmetrical strength.

Government laws do not easily build strength of character. That's one of the reasons "puritanical" laws don't usually work. Family, community, Church, and overall culture helps to form ideas about character. But as we increasingly lose those things, people return increasingly to the government. This gives us a distorted view of what government or its laws are, or should be, about.

I don't know...it's a tricky situation. Left-liberals are using laws more-and-more to enforce their vision of the world. When it comes to abortion, I think the best we can hope for today is that the issue decentralizes to the individual states. We have to stop thinking that centralized power is the way to go; just look what the powers that be want: they want a "globalism" that even does away with nations.
Reply
#12
(07-15-2018, 03:45 PM)OldRightGeorge Wrote: Edward Feser (and others) would argue that natural law philosophy doesn't per se need to appeal to God. Just as we can study physics without appealing to God, we can study ethics likewise. However, everything ultimately or metaphysically depends upon God.

C.S. Lewis makes a similar argument in The Abolition of Man. He says something to the effect of 'I am a theist, indeed a Christian, but the existence of the natural law can be proven without an appeal to the existence of a Supreme Being, through the sensus hominibus'.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#13
OldRightGeorge Wrote:I agree with jovan66102 that it's a "two way street." Government laws influence people and their ideas; that's surely correct. However, wouldn't the culture, ultimately, be primary in its determination? Governments and governmental laws depend upon a public that, in some way, at least tacitly consent to it. For example, if public consent absolutely vanished, the government would. The government derives its powers and tax money from civil society. If, for example, the culture stopped believing in X, it would be difficult for the government to enforce X in the long-run. Does that make sense?
 
Depends on the situation. Millions of unarmed Chinese couldn't do a thing against Mao, for ex. And in the U.S., our congressman aren't beholden to us, but to the people who've bribed them. Activist judges make hash out of law as well, all out of reach of "we, the people." We have less of an excuse here, though, IMO, because we are armed.

OldRightGeorge Wrote:(snip)

I don't know...it's a tricky situation. Left-liberals are using laws more-and-more to enforce their vision of the world. When it comes to abortion, I think the best we can hope for today is that the issue decentralizes to the individual states. We have to stop thinking that centralized power is the way to go; just look what the powers that be want: they want a "globalism" that even does away with nations.
 
That's exactly where homicide laws belong ideally -- the individual States. But since they made the 14th amendment and interpreted it to allow the federal government to govern everything, not sure that can fly these days. I mean, can we reasonably have an amendment that only covers humans who are born? I'm not an attorney or anything, just throwing stuff out there... 

In any case, Roe v. Wade has to go. I reckon abortion, at that point, would "naturally" devolve to the States, and would have to be brought up again in light of the 14th. I mean, say it all goes back to the States. Then imagine that someone wants to bring suit on behalf of an aborted child in a State in which abortion is legal. Wouldn't the Court have to determine whether or not that child deserved "equal protection" and that a failure to act against the killers would be akin to the police not acting to arrest people who killed members of a minority group (say African-Americans)? I mean, can you imagine a situation in which police of a given State decided to not arrest anyone who went around slaughtering black people or Muslims or whomever?
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#14
Jovan66102,

Thanks! I love C. S. Lewis, especially his book The Four Loves (which I read some months ago).

However doesn't Lewis say, in The Abolition of Man, that we cannot prove "the Tao" or "natural law"? In that book, if my memory is right, it seems like it's more of an acceptance by leap of faith. Of course, that might be right on some level; still, it doesn't seem like the correct view of the matter. That is, we might know natural law independently from knowing God, but it's still more like a leap of faith. He talks kind of like this: we're either in the Tao (natural law) or not; we know it or don't; we cannot prove it.

What you're saying seems to contradict my memory.

VoxClamantis,

Yes, this is a good point. Thank you!

I guess my central premise is that coercive force alone usually cannot explain why a particular government has power over a given territory, since the public-at-large is greater than a ruling class. This is in addition to the government's economic resources being obtained via taxation from that public-at-large. Its resources and power are from civil society. Hence the need for another causal factor: public consent.

(But congressmen or the courts not being accountable to the people doesn't necessarily contradict this point. People consent, and I'm using "consent" in a very loose sense, in accepting the current government even with such warts as bad congressmen or courts. It can just be a passive acceptance. For example, a monarchy doesn't require people to "consent" in some explicit vote, and it will tend to exist as long as most people are okay with the monarch, and are "okay" in a loose sense of "consent." Conversely, if everyone all of a sudden was against monarchy 100% in that loose sense of "consent," that monarchy probably wouldn't last long.)

But then, strength of force can be so great with the ruling class that the public cannot do much. A ruling class, hypothetically, might threaten the use of nuclear weapons on a rebelling public. So the strength of force can be on their side. Yet this is assuming that a significant number in the government, as it deals with providing that strength of force, doesn't rebel with the public.

You point out a danger: when the strength of the ruling class is so great, there's a danger of tyranny. So, your point on an armed public is well-taken! It's excellent.

As far as abortion: agreed. Let's pray and hope that Roe v. Wade someday does go. I think the centralized modern government has more to do with social engineering, especially against traditional values, than anything else. De facto, if not just totally de jure, legislation from the centralized courts and whatnot is a part of this.
Reply
#15
(07-15-2018, 09:56 PM)OldRightGeorge Wrote: Jovan66102,

Thanks! I love C. S. Lewis, especially his book The Four Loves (which I read some months ago).

However doesn't Lewis say, in The Abolition of Man, that we cannot prove "the Tao" or "natural law"? In that book, if my memory is right, it seems like it's more of an acceptance by leap of faith. Of course, that might be right on some level; still, it doesn't seem like the correct view of the matter. That is, we might know natural law independently from knowing God, but it's still more like a leap of faith. He talks kind of like this: we're either in the Tao (natural law) or not; we know it or don't; we cannot prove it.

What you're saying seems to contradict my memory.
Well, to be honest, it's been 20 or 30 years since I've read it, and I don't have a copy at hand, but I remember that he does claim to 'prove' the Tao by the common consent of the traditions of man, but I could be wrong.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#16
(07-15-2018, 09:56 PM)OldRightGeorge Wrote: (But congressmen or the courts not being accountable to the people doesn't necessarily contradict this point. People consent, and I'm using "consent" in a very loose sense, in accepting the current government even with such warts as bad congressmen or courts. It can just be a passive acceptance.

Absolutely, and we and Europeans are way, way too passive. Much too passive. What's going on in England with regard to free speech and the rape gangs is shocking to me. At some point, if things stay on this course, there will almost have to be violence. I dread all that...

Quote:As far as abortion: agreed. Let's pray and hope that Roe v. Wade someday does go. I think the centralized modern government has more to do with social engineering, especially against traditional values, than anything else. De facto, if not just totally de jure, legislation from the centralized courts and whatnot is a part of this.
 
The Civil War killed us and created a monster federal government. Thanks to Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, there's not much left of what the Founders intended.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
Reply
#17
(07-15-2018, 11:45 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(07-15-2018, 09:56 PM)OldRightGeorge Wrote: Jovan66102,

Thanks! I love C. S. Lewis, especially his book The Four Loves (which I read some months ago).

However doesn't Lewis say, in The Abolition of Man, that we cannot prove "the Tao" or "natural law"? In that book, if my memory is right, it seems like it's more of an acceptance by leap of faith. Of course, that might be right on some level; still, it doesn't seem like the correct view of the matter. That is, we might know natural law independently from knowing God, but it's still more like a leap of faith. He talks kind of like this: we're either in the Tao (natural law) or not; we know it or don't; we cannot prove it.

What you're saying seems to contradict my memory.
Well, to be honest, it's been 20 or 30 years since I've read it, and I don't have a copy at hand, but I remember that he does claim to 'prove' the Tao by the common consent of the traditions of man, but I could be wrong.


Regardless of what Lewis said, the natural law can largely be inferred simply by human nature. It's the divine law which must be revealed. Much like how we can know for certain that God exists without knowing that he is a trinity. The one is a product of natural philosophy, the other of Revelation.

But at the same time we don't just come into the world automatically knowing the natural law, it must be taught. But once we are in the know it becomes easier for us to directly infer other aspects of the law without needing it taught to us.
Surréxit Dóminus vere, Alleluia!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)