Try to prove natural law theory wrong

>2017+1
>STILL subscribing to static theories of jurisprudence
Dworkin has objectively the right answer.

Attached: 1491358508710.jpg (470x470, 70K)

First, proffer a definition of natural law. Second, understand that you’re wrong. The law is normative. Nature is unconcerned with Justice. Read Hobbes

A perfect society would be a managed economy where usury is non-existent.

Land would definibly be public property.

God would literally take part in the actual government, aside from a supervisory role which has become solely perfunctory in today’s Judicial proceedings.

Is ought

everyone will come into this thread ignorant to the fact that their thought is a product of the failed Enlightenment project and thus a product of Luther's rejection of scholasticism.

desu it's either Aristotle or Nietzsche
if Aristotle was right about there being a telos dictated by a metaphysical force, then we need not Nietzsche's philosphy

IS
OUGHT
IS
OUGHT
Fuck off MacIntyre

Obviously things reflect their nature but it's not some external universal. Change one's nature (one's biology) and you change disrupt the so-called law. Furthermore, things that come under it can only be more fundamental than the sociocultural abstractions assigned to it. Meaning that it is basically meaningless and has no place in thought. Particular in regards to humans, who are highly malleable.

but it's true though :?)

What is wrong with Macintyres work on ethics and teleology?

natural: whatever was, prior to the fall
law: an immutable rule

>managed economy
will always fail so long as resources are scarce

>implying the event of this world isn't that tension between unconcealment and concealment
it's like you never read heidegger

>Managed economy
lol

it would include what you said too my friend

Dworkin is retarded. He literally argues for the meaning of laws and statutes to change over time if a judge says so.

As opposed to what? Laws staying the same eternally? Try applying 16th century tort law in the digital age. And it's not a single judge that decides how laws can change, but society represented by judges over a long period of time.

its fucking gay christfaggotry and you niggers need to be gassed for spreading ideas from Greece with your disgusting faith attached to them

I'm not even sure if this deserves a response.

Are you... upset? :?)

Whatever we do is inherently natural therefore the term is merely a description of what's possible rather than an ethical directive.

nautralistic fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy is that something is morally correct because it happens in nature. I didn't say that, only that nature describes what's possible.

But every Economy is inherently managed, anyway.

Things being scarce don’t increase competition, people do. When you study economics as both a phenomenon and a controlled phenomenon, you see why it’s comprehension is one of the most important aspects in social philosophy. I mean, it’s why J.S. Mill devoted so much time to this sort of thing.

Just to add on, there is an user floating around who thinks economics is inherently valueless, especially if mathematized. He is incorrect.

The mathematical analysis of the phenomenon of the free market is how you end up with immutable economic truths in the first place. For instance, you may not understand this, but Léon Walras’ explanation of how an income or wage tax of any kind resolves itself into what is basically a tax on consumption, eventually taxing everyone in the economy on whom the tax wasn’t even levied. He also found the only tax which doesn’t realize itself into a tax on consumption is a tax on rent, thereby vindicating Henry George’s theory of rent and economics.

All of this is the sole reason why I said land should be public property.

Usury being non-existent is a religious principle, as well as divine, and is fully stated in Plato’s Laws to be unnecessary in a perfect society.

Sometimes the explanations to things can be long and detailed, but just because they are doesn’t mean I don’t go through the trouble of trying to comprehend and understand it.

If anyone has the mentality that the free market should be unchecked, by the way, you are verifiably economically retarded. There is no justification for the assertion that the free market should go unchecked, not even Von Mises believed this.

Care to explain why?

But then your definition of naturalistic law is wrong since Aquinas used it to justify people that were not exposed to the Bible or the Catholic faith.

It's interesting that so much time has passed and people still buy into the is ought fallacy from hacks like Peterson. Evolutionary psychology is quite a spook.

there was no fall. only autumn.

My definition of nature is not the same as Aquinas'. I'm well aware that any *real* attempt to grasp the true meaning of the universe and therefore nature is, really, just impossible because human perception has errors, by a very big margin. But the best we can do on the nature side of things is science. And science has not found any moral imperative.

I don't buy into the is-ought fallacy, again, I haven't at all that nature is a moral imperative. Nature as far as we can tell is a non-participant in morality, its just the means by which events happen. It has no bearing on whether they're right or wrong.

As opposed to following what the law is and says. Meaning doesn't and cannot evolve : if it did language would virtually be impossible, because it couldn't be defined at all. Words can denote different meanings over time, but the meaning itself, that the word denotes, in a particular time, does not change. And judges cannot make that meaning change or evolve, that's not their role - their role is applying the law to particular cases, not altering it. Altering the law, is usurpation of the legislative power, and it often rests, when they do so, on erroneous conceptions of what "interpretation" is. When a judge says they're re-interpreting a text to mean something else, it is not an interpretation, it is a usurpation of power, because for there to be an interpretation, there would have needed there to be an ambiguity in the text, and often, there is not. If there's no ambiguity, then there's no interpretation possible : the text says what it says period. If you were to say you're interpreting the text, it would lead to a logical fallacy, because the elements on which you base your interpretation (words, sentences, etc.) would themselves have to be interpreted, and so ad infinitum. So Dworkin's theory is retarded because it relies on a misconception of what language is and of the judge's power. So to answer your question, every statute should be applied, as it is written, with the meaning commonly understood at the time of its adoption. A judge cannot and should not change this, unless, somewhere else in the law or legal tradition, it explicitly is said that they can.

And, yes, sometimes single judges can do that. First level courts are single-judges and they affect the lives of citizens before them. Judges also do not "represent" society. There's no contract between me and any judge. And even if they represented me, I chose my legislative representative : I chose the legislator to legislate, not a judge.

This is why you stay out of discussions like these. Leave the planning of states in the hands of those who believe in God, fedora. We’ll leave you to your little laboratory and test tube experiments. We don’t want you coming anywhere around our city hall

Haha, epic troll dude!

Tips fedora!

Brainlet.

nope because I am not a naturalist

calm down schlomo

I don't like to use the term "Natural Law" because brainlets think it means "It's natural therefore good" as opposed to a system of ethics based on purpose.

though isn't the system based around the supposed natural virtues given by God?

I don't know what natural virtues are but Natural Law is based teleology and the ethics are based on finding the rationally known purpose or end goal of things and acting accordingly.

are the end goal of things objective? who decides what the "rationally known purpose" of x, y, or z is?

>are the end goal of things objective?
yes
>who decides what the "rationally known purpose" of x, y, or z is?
reason

I would say purpose is objective but that doesn't necessarily mean we have knowledge of what it is. The person with the best arguments gets to decide. You can argue that the main purpose of sex is to create rainbows but you wouldn't have very good arguments against a person arguing that the main purpose is to procreate.

>two people use reason to find the end goal for x
>come to different conclusions
>"you're both objectively correct"

Is pure reason not divine?

why should we believe it is?

Which natural law theory? Does your picture imply that we have to base it on Aristotelian teleology?

in what actions / goals does objective purpose lie? all?

Everything has an objective purpose. As I said though, this doesn't mean that we have knowledge or ever could get knowledge of what those purposes are.

I think I would agree, my only problem is I don't think that necessarily makes the objective purpose ethically just. someone killing another person could have the objective purpose of wanting to see someone else suffer, but I find it hard to believe someone who believes in natural law theory would claim that's ethically just.

Because it has been shown that people who are blessed with pure reason and judgment are divine, and are typically blessed by God.

This is why courts of law use the Bible and the old Greek judges made supplications to their Gods for judgment: they wanted divine assistance in the verdict.

Just like jurisprudence, the protection of the Laws, the creation of the Laws requires divine guidance as well. In forming the ultimate city, the Athenian in Plato’s Laws enlists the help of Megillus from Crete for a reason. He has divine judgment, justified by the fact that he is talking to him in that instant, because otherwise he would not be in discussion for the city. Who else is chosen to be one of the elders who lead the creation of the city than Megillus himself? Obviously those who are worthy of discussing such things should be worthy in the creation of the ideal state itself.

Many times, authority throughout the years have been thought divine. But it is not the authority that makes the person divine, but the divinity that recommends him to authority. Hence why some were thought to be threatening the institutions and societal norms by claiming things in authority through divine guidance and were sentenced to death, like Socrates or Jesus Christ.

When you have divine authority it sometimes does work out though, like with King David, but even he had his assailers. You see, politics, like most other business in life, is a mixture of Good and Evil. So when you’ve found someone Good, you can locate him by the gate he attracts from evil and the admiration he receives from Good, regardless of his position in life.

This is why pure reason is divine, because it accompanies this element of Good that Socrates would have alluded to in The Republic. That The Koran or the Tao Te Ching talks of. God and his King, as the Te Ching says. Indeed Lao Tzu, God and his King

Ah Gate should be Hate.

I would say one purpose of being a person is to live and grow and die of old age so it would be a violation to murder a person. What I mean by purpose is the end goal or final cause, I think you're confusing it with purposeful action or intention. I can have the intention of walking down the street but that doesn't mean the end goal of life is to walk down streets. They're unrelated concepts.

I'm saying why should we believe that there is / has been any divinity in pure reason and judgement, and that it's not just some gobbledygook that's been kept alive due to the stupidity of man?

prove the laws require divine guidance, and not that people merely thought they were divinely guided when creating them.

it would include natural law theory too

That’s what I just you moron. I just used like three examples proving divine guidance was necessary.

Be honest, you don’t believe in God and are just projecting your atheism.

This is where we send fedoras

>I just used like three examples proving divine guidance was necessary.
no, you gave three examples of what you thought to be divine, but the support is lacking

One example is from The Laws, another from The Republic, two from The Holy Bible, and I threw in an Eastern mystic religion at the end there.

Looks like the person who doesn’t believe in God has less reasoning capacity than the person who does, so I can say two things with complete confidence

1) good judgment is divine
2) I can count to five

I didn't say you didn't give examples, I'm just saying they don't prove good judgement is divine. they merely claim to be divine

With proofs of divinity, and even examples of divinity used in courts of law to this very day.

**claimed proofs

Is there an actual argument for natural law or is it all really just "my feels tell me that the universe not having laws or goals or preferences is pretty scary, so I don't believe that"?

Go on. Don’t be shy. *pushes you out the door*

Ah he’s in a better place now. Where they’ll accept him for who he is, instead of demanding 100% of his reading comprehension. Ahhhh yeah. You enjoy yourself little fedora. WAIT! Don’t forget to unironically agree with Richard Dawk— ah. He’s too far now, didn’t hear me. Ah well.

thank you user

>Prove this thing that I am asserting wrong

I don't have to

there are elaborate arguments that require one to stop intuiting obvious truths about the ephemeral nature of human ethics. this is how idealism works, many materialists don't get this, thinking any category or virtue is stable, doesn't have near infinite mutations, iterations which don't do the function we're used to, that's idealism. All is becoming

No because natural law is filled with teleology. Naturalists completely deny telos. That's why language to you is all "folly" and words in the end mean nothing to you.

Natural law is a meme

see

Natural laws says I can't be a degenerate druggie pozlord and yet I am, therefore it's wrong. Checkmate theists.

Recommendations on studying the natural law? Besides the obvious Aquinas

I really liked this book

Attached: natural-law.jpg (211x346, 24K)

Ten Universal Principles: A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues by Fr. Spitzer
After the Natural Law by John Lawrence Hill
Virtue Ethics by Alasdair MacIntyre

101110101101