When we speak about natural moral law, well...some non-believers seems to agree with it...minus God of course and not all Christian agrees with it. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) believed on it. He believed that human beings have a natural “moral sense” that instructs them about right and wrong. Darwin claimed that man’s social instincts arise out of his biology, and that these social instincts “naturally lead to the golden rule, ‘As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise.’” For Darwin, this maxim “lies at the foundation of morality.” According to Darwin, then, it would seem that evolution ultimately promotes the morality of Jesus rather than the law of the jungle.[Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), vol. I, p. 106.]
The 17th-century Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius believed that humans by nature are not only reasonable but social. Thus the rules that are "natural" to them -- those dictated by reason alone -- are those which enable them to live in harmony with one another. From this argument, by the way, Grotius developed the first comprehensive theory of international law. John Locke argued that human beings in the state of nature are free and equal, yet insecure in their freedom. Thomas Jefferson used the natural law theory to justify his trinity of "inalienable rights" which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.
Nah we won't talk about it in the basis of secular thought. We will concentrate more on how the philosopher and theologian, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) saw it. Remember, this is one of the basic Catholic doctrine of Thomas Aquinas on his“Summa Theologica” and it seems this is the same idea Mr. Rogelio Tayag wants to impose. According to Aquinas, “human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. Thus, humans are morally obliged to use their reasoning to discern what the laws are and then to act in conformity with them."
Now…there are problems with this theory.
Suppose I am a Muslim extremist and I believe that by killing Infidels and non-believers will bring me to heaven. Now, do you think these extremists will be bothered by their conscience when they slaughter infidels and non-believers? It seems that this “NATURAL MORAL LAW” and conscience is dictated by the belief system you believed in.
Teewee Diego replied:
muslim extremist it was not the natural law that an extremist was hedging on but an imputed ideology- his conscience blocked- brainwashed- killing for a god he believed in and in this god he believed in, its teachings taught him that killing for his god will save him- it is not the natural law anymore- but laws of their own making.
so now why is it the tendency of almost all system of belief goes into the direction of order. not disorder John. Because if I where to follow your argument- mankind could have cancelled each other out- and we could have eradicated entirely from the face of this earth.
so Thomas Aquinas was right- man is morally good
John the Atheist: Let see...natural law is about order not disorder. In the Muslim extremist for example, if the world will be getting rid of Infidels, that's going to a perfect order.
What I'm just saying that humans do not have a "natural" tendency to be good. You can't equalify to nature what is moral goodness. Now it is really an equal balance of "good" and "evil" sa nature. That's why our species survived. We tend to be "good" with our species or tribe or community but we tend to be evil in others. That's how our species survived.
Here’s a good example: Do you know that there are a lot of German soldiers that worked in those concentration camps like Dachau and Auschwitz-Birkenau that can easily live their lives normally after a day of killing and burning Jews? They can even go home, play with their children and have a good sleep in the night after all the days carnage.
Why? Because it is their strong belief that Jews are lower than humans and since they're Christians, it’s their responsibility to exterminate them…that’s anti-Semitism…yes…but that’s their world view.
Thomas Aquinas seems to think that humans are morally good…that it is natural for humans to be good. But behavioral science has shown to us the male human species is naturally aggressive. Konrad Lorenz (zoologist, animal psychologist, and ornithologist), observed that members of the same species were aggressive towards each other when they were subject to specific threats. He says that aggression is a natural instinct that has the biological function of ensuring the proper spacing of animals, thereby helping to maintain the stability of the group. It seems evolutionary theory has challenged much of the basis of thinking that there is a moral natural order, since on evolutionary theory species has developed they way they have out of survival needs.
Also, human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment that one is exposed to, which includes social classes, education and upbringing; this opposes the theory of natural moral law. Remember that our behavior is modified by these three basic elements: 1) self-preservation; 2) the reason for self-preservation, reproduction; and 3) a method to enhance self-preservation and reproduction which can be interpreted as natural greed of the surviving species.
Another problem we face in the theory of natural law is time. During the past years, slavery and women having no rights were seemed to be accepted by civilization. We don’t even see, “Thou shall not have a slave” in the 10 Commandments. Now Slavery and women's rights is highly accepted. So that what is right in one epoch may not be right in another.
There is also the problem of the principle of double effect:"it is morally permissible to perform an action that has two effects, one good and the other bad, if (1) the bad effect is unavoidable if the good effect is to be achieved, (2) the bad effect is unintended—that is, not a direct means to the good effect, and (3) a proportionally serious reason exists for performing the action." The best example is the one involving the women with a pregnancy that threatens her life and the unborn. Since the baby is inside her fallopian tube it will die , and so will the mother. Thus there are clearly lines where the Natural law theory becomes blurred.
Well since Thomas Aquinas is very Aristotelian, we can say na malaki ang naging impluensya ni Aristotle sa mga philosophiya ni Aquinas. Aristotle believes kasi that man is naturally good and rational and that man will always seek to what is good. Para kay Aristotle everything in the world has a purpose, revealed in its design, and that it's supreme "good" and is to be sought in fulfilling that purpose. Natural law is not simply about what nature does, but it is based on nature as interpreted by human reason. Dito sinunod ni Aquinas ang kanyang explanation…the difference is that he added “God” in the ingredients.
Problem here will start with Aristotle. Una, what “interpretation” is needed to understand what nature wants us to do? People have interpreted nature differently. Also, there is the problem with the idea of man is always good. Thomas Hobbes explicitly rejected the Aristotelian view by proposing that our ancestors started out autonomous and combative, establishing community life only when the cost of strife became unbearable. According to Hobbes, social life never came naturally to us. He saw it as a step we took reluctantly and “by covenant only, which is artificial”.
Adam Smith, the Scottish moral philosopher and father of economics also has this observation. For him, selfishness and self-interest is an inherit nature of humans.
Yes, morality is needed to keep our species to survive…No human moral society could be imagined without reciprocal exchange and an emotional interest in others…yan din po ang paniniwala ni Charles Darwin. I agree with that. But what I don’t agree that human is naturally good and that Nature or what some called as Laws of Nature will guide humans to do good and to search for God.
Sabi nga ni John Start Mill, “In sober truth, nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another are nature’s everyday performances.” One of his best examples is killing. In nature, killing is a normal act. Animals kill other animals for food, territory and as protection. Now that is the natural state of nature. If I will believe Aquinas, then killing will become morally good.
Natural law theories are unclear in their application…which brings me to Aquinas. Sabi nya the first principle of natural law is "do good, avoid evil" and that reason should be our guide to morality. Sa madaling salita, doing good and avoiding evil is self-evident na raw sa tao. It also implicitly tells us that that nature is good, or else then natural law will not operates on that premise.
These have a lot of shortcomings. Since this rule does not specify what is good, it cannot be further analyzed to find more specific moral rules. Also, Thomas Aquinas did not use modern standards of objective evidence but based his theology on speculation.
Now is nature that good as Aquinas wants us to believe. Let us take the cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) as example. When a female common cuckoo is ready to lay her egg she must first find a bird species whose eggs resemble hers. All she needs next is an opportune moment during which both parents are away from the nest running errands, so she can sneak in and deposit her egg inside. Once that is done, she flies away and never bothers to pay the host family or her chick another visit. Now what will happen next is that when the cuckoo chick is hatched, it will kill the host’s chick. Gruesome huh?
Now let us talk about sex. In a natural world, sex is only used as reproduction purpose? Weh? Maybe Aquinas never thought that sex to humans is more than that: Human sexual intercourse is clearly for much more than simple reproduction of the species. Sexual intercourse conduces to the well-being of human beings in many ways. For instance, sexual intercourse can expand the opportunities for humans to love — not only to love their sexual partner but also to love the offspring they may have. It allows spouses to build a family together and to have a meaningful life.
Even if we have certain natural propensities as Aquinas may say, are we justified in claiming that those tendencies should be developed? On what grounds do we justify, for example, that we ought to choose the good?
We also have the problem of defining if Nature does have an effect with our morality. In my last example, sinabi ko na human behavior may be solely reliant upon the environment. It can be his educational or cultural background, religious background or his philosophical world-view (these are not natural…’ika nga). Now there is also the problem that we can’t even detect kung may physical or natural cause ang evil.
Natural law is supposedly inside the mind, like conscience, telling what morality is. Natural Law is often equated with conscience. Now when serial killer John Wayne Gacy was executed on May 10, 1994, his brain was removed and was studied by Dr. Helen Morrison. It was found out later that Gacy didn’t reveal any abnormalities. The tests she performed came back the same as the EEG: normal. Sabi nga nya, “Murder is just an action. It has no meaning. It has no motive. It has no underlying cause,” and she also added, “The most frightening part about a serial killer is there is no reason.”
Teewee Diego: tell me what were the inputs of the primitives of the AMAZON JUNGLE PEOPLE- THE ALMOST NAKED PEOPLE OF NEW GUINEA- IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE STRICK MORAL LAWS THAN THOSE OF US WHO WERE EDUCATED IN THIS MODERN WORLD - DO THEY HAVE A WRITTEN CODE - THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY BIBLE- THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DIETIES - IT CAN BE A STONE A TREE OR THEIR OWN ANCESTORS
John the Atheist: Not really, kasi po ang kanilang “strict moral laws” is just base on their tribe. Kagaya nga ng sabi ni Hoobes, may social contract…whether written and unwritten. In the case you presented @ Teewee, yung pong “strict moral law” na nakikita mo sa mga “almost naked people of New Guinea” depends sa social contract nila…Hmmmm… let’s make a more concrete example: Let’s talk about the Korubo Tribe in Brazil…at least may name yung tribe.
The Korubo tribe or what the Portuguese called “head bashers” eh hindi papatay ng ka-tribo nila…but they will not hesitate to club the head of someone outside of their tribe. Well…so much for your natural love to fellow men. Another example are those of the Jivaro Indians who will not kill anyone on its tribe, but will gladly decapitate any stranger and reduce its head into an ornament.
Teewee Diego: THE BASIC LAW : "DO THIS TO ME AND I WILL DO IT TO YOU". THERE WILL BE WAR- ITO SINABI MO THE STUCTURE OF MORAL THEORY IS
OBJECTIVE - IF SO THEN IT EMANATES FROM THE INDIVIDUAL- TAMA NANAMAN SI AQUINAS DITO
Pinoy Atheist: Basic law of what @ Teewee…Golden Rule ba? Nah this is not a natural…it cannot be seen in nature po. Let see…if you will rescue a snake, chances are tutuklawin ka nyan diba? Walang utang na loob ‘ika nga. So generally in the natural form, there is no so thing as debt of gratitude. Mali si Aquinas na natural tend to be good.
So what if the structure of moral theory is objective? Naintindihan mo po ba ang ibig sabihin nyan? I guess not…
Well, when we say that moral theory is objective, which means these things can be felt po, like justice, autonomy, love, fidelity and honesty, sa madaling salita it must originate outside the mind. Nararandaman yan, nakikita, (meaning nakikita in the sense na alam mong ginagawa ng kapwa tao mo o ng sarili mo) BUT…interpreting those things need a subjective value. Para kay Aquinas…if you really understand what Natural Moral Law is @ Teewee Diego, ang moralidad daw eh nilagay na ng God sa loob natin. That means hindi na objective ito. It is now in the form of conscience. Weh? So papaano na yan? To Aquinas, morality is subjective, because we interpret nature and conscience differently.
According to Thomas Aquinas, ang pag-nanakaw ay mali…why? Because it defies the Natural Moral Law and God have already place that idea in our conscience…but papaano kung nagugutom na? It is natural for animals and people to steal food kung wala ng ibang paraan na makakuha. What is morality nga ba @ Teewee Diego? Morality is the distinction between what is right and what is wrong…Now…let us try using Aquinas’ theory…how can you say what is right and what is wrong between nature and human reasoning? In the example about stealing, how can you tell me @ Teewee na ang pag-nanakaw eh mali base sa theory ni Aquinas. In nature ang pag-nanakaw ay gagawin para mabuhay ka…hindi mali yan…kung babasihan natin sa Nature…unless we will then place an arbitrary aurthority to tell us what is right or wrong: VIOLA! May Social contract na!
Thomas Aquinas says that the arbiter is the conscience (conscience is the intellectual apprehension of the Divine Law). Now, the problem here is that conscience is subjective; it is personal and it doesn’t lead to a universal conclusion.
========================================
Ok, ok...no more Facebook discussion post. Let's go to serious business.
It is the traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic church that conscience is the final judge whether an action is in conformity with objective law or not.
According to Thomas Aquinas, conscience is connected to the rational faculty of man. Now, if this rational faculty is corrupted, conscience becomes unreliable. That is why in the end; Thomas Aquinas becomes the victim of his own theory when he defended the evils of the Inquisition “in good conscience.” Religious, philosophical and political beliefs, misguided idealism, malicious propaganda and poor education can corrupt a person’s rational faculty.
In nature…
Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican who was greatly influence by the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle believes that human are by nature good. Benedict de Spinoza (1634-1677) also believed that men are not conditioned to live by reason alone, but by instinct. Greatly influenced by Spinoza, Giambattista Vico (1688-1744) believed that God’s law were immanent not transcendent. God places these laws on us by instinct. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) both believed that men are guided by natural law, but unlike Aquinas, reason (not conscience) is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, of good and evil. These ethical theories influenced Thomas Jefferson’s "inalienable rights" which were stated in the United States Declaration of Independence.
However, some believed that nature could not provide the norm and pattern for moral behavior. The Lisbon earthquake of 1747 brought out a moral dilemma on natural moral law. Voltaire (1694-1778) asked if nature is good, then there must be no evil. John Stuart Mill suggested that ethical naturalism is blind to the obvious darker side of nature, the side marked by physical disorder and calamities, the aberration of the human heart and the tragedy of history. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) stated that the natural condition of man is war. Since the main law of nature is self-preservation, it follows that men are obliged to conferre all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that will reduce all their wills to one will. There must be someone who has the power to enforce contracts and obligation.
Going through Hobbes, John Locke (1632-1704) like Hobbes believe that man by nature are equal (not good), but unlike Hobbes, he believe that civil society will prosper with reason. Therefore, instead of conscience, society must set up a known authority to which everyone may appeal and obey. However, this authority should be judge in each own case. Common good is now not base in instinct and nature but is determined by standing laws, statutes that all are aware of and agreed to.
Natural moral law is definitely a two-bladed sword. If a Christian would insist that morality in embedded in nature, what do I have to lose? If that is true, then we don’t need a God to discover morality. If Darwin was right about morality, that it (like cooperation and altruism) evolved to humans (through natural selection) then who needs God.
Speaking of morality, I prefer Mr. David Ramsay Steele’s explanation regarding this issue. His view is that the structure of moral theory is just as objective as the structure of – say medical theory. Now, practicing morality, like practicing medicine, requires an input of subjective values. In the case of morality, these values derive from empathy from other conscious beings. This empathy is in fact, almost but not quite universal among humans. (Atheism Explained – From Folly to Philosophy p.289).
