Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Birinair]

I don't think I have had such a stimulating debate since I left university. But I now think that I have all but exhausted my arguments.

I agree that there has to be a moral standard, that should be set by some level of societal agreement in respect of wrongs. I am, however biased and in favour of western tradition of what is right and wrong. What concerns me about the argument re the existence of natural law, is the way it may be subverted to support my particular bias, making me very comfortable in my morality, whereas if I had faith I could justify this on the basis of a divine rule of law, I am left wondering whether I have got it wrong.

Consider this: (if you do not believe in evolution this argument is useless) what if murder, mayhem and crime is just nature's way of developing the species, and what we are doing by interfering is slowing the eventual evolution of Homo Superior the completely enlightened individual who can take a proper place in the peoples of the universe.

[Ryzel]

Are we discussing evil acts, evil persons or evil motivations here?

I am generally in agreement with those who hold that there is no objectivity in this matter and that all laws are a construction by mankind.

I do not know if I think that something is evil just because it is unlawful though. Nor do I necessarily think that something is good just because it is legal.

As for the question of murder and mayhem above: The obvious reason why it would be bad for people to go around murdering each other in an evolutionary sense is that if we did that we would produce a greater amount of people who were good at that and thus we would probably make ourselves extinct in short order.

[Fist and Faith]

I spent most of my day at work thinking about "Natural/Universal Law." (It's more fun than thinking about my job, eh?) My first thought is that I don't believe there actually is such a thing in nature. But I must qualify this by saying that, since you only exposed me to this concept last night, I don't know enough specifics to be sure. If I knew exactly what these international laws were - for example, not just "torture," but the international law's exact definition of torture - and exactly what behaviors in animals they were based on, I might believe otherwise. But without knowing the specifics, here's my thinking...

If there is a law against eating your own children, it is not based on a universal pattern of behavior in the animal kingdom. Off hand, I know that there are several species of fish and alligators (or crocodiles - I don't remember which) that eat their young.

If there is a law that prohibits a man from killing the offspring of his mate's previous mate, it is not based on a universal pattern of behavior in the animal kingdom. The lion is perhaps the most famous example of an animal that does the opposite of such a law. When a new male wins control of a pride, by defeating the male who was in charge, he kills any cubs, so that only his blood will be passed on. (In his future offspring.)

I'm sure you see my line of reasoning. I'm not even sure genocide is entirely absent from the animal kingdom. I remember hearing of groups of frogs and gorillas that wiped out entire groups of competitors.

If no behaviors are actually universal in the animal world, how was it decided which behaviors to base the international laws upon? For each law and its covenants, did a majority of whatever group made these international laws vote for the behavior of one or more species over the others? (Over at the Hangar, you showed me a specific example of free will that I hadn't thought of, showing me that I can't, by any means, rule out the possibility. I wouldn't be surprised if you can do something like that here!:))

My second thought is that, even if every species in the animal kingdom behaved in a certain way, it would not necessarily be an objective standard of right and wrong for humans. We are extraordinarily different from every other species; different in a way that we do not share with any other species, whereas no characteristic of any other species is entirely unique to that species. We alone possess what I consider to be the most powerful and profound characteristic that any species has ever had. I wouldn't consider it out of line if someone thought that we do not need to judge our morality by the behavior of other species.

Murder though .. in some long forgotten races .. may have been an acceptable method of securing status .. does not accord with Natural Law .. Fundamentally .. because murder and brutality does not perpetuate humankind .. If this action falls outside of principles that promote life then it is against Universal Law.

I think we're onto something important with your last sentence.

But speaking of 'wrong' .. if subjectivity is relied upon .. then to Milosovich if he believed genocide morally justifiable .. or an even better example of this is: Osama bin Laden .. if he truly believed that in orchestrating the deaths of thousands on 9/11 [subjective test] that his actions are morally justifiable .. righteous even .. [subjectivity imho=faith based judgement] .. then we only have a limited standard upon which to determine the scope or even existence of a person's guilt.

Pretty much what caamora said earlier, and, again, it states what I consider the actual reality of the situation very well. Better than the Hitler example, in fact. What I consider a significant percentage of the human race celebrated on 9/11. Another large percentage, one with greater military strength, thinks bin Laden committed evil.

Do we then accept that the subjective test is preferrable to an objective one?? Do we reconcile the conflicting subjectivities [which there will always be] by turning a blind eye to 'wrong' .. even when viewed as 'right'?

As I've said, I don't see any reason to believe there is an objective test. Our species will never agree on how to define right and wrong, good and evil. I imagine the best (my subjective opinion of "best") we will ever do is the best we have done all along. Not always great, but sometimes.

[Reisheiruhime]

Give the guy a hand people, he deserves it! That is, well, wow! One word does it, wow!

[Skyweir]

oh dear I thought I had explained this already .. but clearly not sufficiently.

natural law is not based on the animal world .. and it is not divine law per se ..

It is beyond both these concepts .. and if its not it should be

In some ways it is influenced by nature .. by the way what do you mean you dont believe in nature?? .. but it is not elicited from the actions of the animal kingdom ..

Because Universal Law believes that humanity is beyond the primal instincts that lions may possess .. or snakes or a variety of beings.

Lions may eat the previous mates of their mates .. so? We dont follow the laws of the jungle ..

Universal Laws promote humanity .. they are ratified .. for want of a better word .. in the formation of International Law!! The Nuerenburg trials would not have occurred without the creation of the real offence of 'crimes against humanity'.

Dont lose that thought! 'CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY'

Universal Law has everything to do with the pursuit of humanity .. It may well have been considered as stemming from some divine notion of law .. but today it is more broadly regarded as being grounded in simple values ..

What concerns me about the argument re the existence of natural law, is the way it may be subverted to support my particular bias, making me very comfortable in my morality

this is not a sound interpretation imho. Universal law is an objective standard .. 'crimes against humanity are an objective standard .. regardless of your particular bias or view point. It is designed to address those who would hide from justice behind the subjective excuse of 'belief'.

It operates regardless of a persons belief .. it is OBJECTIVE.

subjectivity can not provide a reliable test of determining what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' .. and certainly never .. what is 'EVIL' .. as that is quite fundamentally a moral judgement based on the observer's belief.

I am generally in agreement with those who hold that there is no objectivity in this matter and that all laws are a construction by mankind.

yes quite naturally that is true .. Universal Law or lets substitute the reification of Universal Law .. the 'crimes against humanity' legislation .. Seeks to be an objective standard .. and imho it succeeds .. its the best we have got.

I do not know if I think that something is evil just because it is unlawful though. Nor do I necessarily think that something is good just because it is legal

I absolutely agree .. and this is a problem with all human constructions.

As for the question of murder and mayhem above: The obvious reason why it would be bad for people to go around murdering each other in an evolutionary sense is that if we did that we would produce a greater amount of people who were good at that and thus we would probably make ourselves extinct in short order.

precisely!! and for this reason you will not see Universal Law condoning murder and mayhem .. for it does not promote 'humanity'.

moral standard, that should be set by some level of societal agreement in respect of wrongs

This notion of what is 'wrong' is determined by societal agreement does not accord with Universal Law .. as you have argued against.

And it is significant that our body of international law is based on Universal Law .. because it claims to be laws elicited in the promotion of humanity .. and as an objective test .. or the closest thing we have to one .. it does not hinge on popular belief. To me this makes it the preferrable watch dog ..

I don't see any reason to believe there is an objective test

there is an objective test .. in the employment of Universal Law in the validification and creation of International Law .. particularly the legislation that relates to 'Crimes against Humanity' .. and the International War Crimes Tribunal .. and more precisely .. the Nuerenburg Trial where WW2 war criminals were tried for their 'wrongs'.

Had this not happened .. there would have been NO lawful remedy to address these particular war criminals.

Victor's justice you may cry .. sure .. and Victims of the holocaust justice .. and a whole range of other 'wrongs' committed by the Nazi regime demanding justice.

Had this not happened .. justice would have not had place in history .. and today .. via neglecting this vital ingredient JUSTICE .. we would have established a precedent that supported the subjective test - personal belief .. rogue laws .. black laws .. and principally 'evil' in the most subjective of terms!

I imagine the best (my subjective opinion of "best") we will ever do is the best we have done all along

what is this point?

Our species will never agree on how to define right and wrong, good and evil

precisely why we need and why we HAVE an objective standard .. a minimum standard which is promoted by the 'Crimes against Humanity' legislation and international law.

Now back to evil .. I may be responsible for taking this thread off on a tangent .. .. but I think it was a worthy diversion and not entirely unrelated to the topic ..

Was Foul evil? was that the original question ..

What is evil? .. there seems to be some concensus that 'evil' is a subjective judgement dependant upon the pov of 3rd parties?? yes or no??

[caamora]

I have been reading these posts and - wow! - you guys are good! I'm kind of afraid to post here for fear of sounding stupid!

Sky, I agree with you entirely!

[Fist and Faith]

Skyweir,
The emoticon doesn't cover all of this!:) I feel like we're having two different conversations. If you're still game, I'm going to go to basics here, as I understand them.

You have repeatedly insisted that the international laws that someone or other set up are based on the objective principles of what you have referred to as "Natural" and/or "Universal" Law, and Natural Justice.

At first, I thought you were saying that the objective principles that these laws are based on are innate feelings that all people share, even if all people don't always behave as these feelings would seem to suggest we should. I said that I don't think that any feelings are univeral in humans. But that isn't important, because you said that this is not what the international laws are based on.

Next, I thought you were saying that the objective principles are the universal behaviors of the other animal species. That if all animals behave the same way in regard to a specific topic, that behavior is considered an objective standard. I said that I don't believe any behavior is universal to all species. But, again, that isn't important, because you said this isn't what the international laws are based on either.

You have also said that these objective principles are not divine law, nor the result of a majority vote.

So I have only one question for you: What are the objective principles of Natural/Universal Law, which the international laws are based on? There's got to be something you can give me.

I ask you, since nobody else here is insisting so strongly that such principles exist, and you say you studied natural law. (Even if it was a while ago.)

I do not expect that the principles that the founders of these international laws used are actually objective. I expect to find them to be very subjective. But I can't say for sure, since I do not know what the principles are. I also expected to find fault with any argument for free will, but...

Give the guy a hand people, he deserves it! That is, well, wow! One word does it, wow!

Was this for me??

[Birinair]

Skywier indicates that because a law has been accepted as promoting humanity and is in place within international law it is objective. If he means to indicate that the application of that law thereafter is objective, then that is a supportable argument, as long as the rule remains the same, and it is applied equally to all, then its application is objective.

However that is not the same as saying natural law is objective from source, because however it is codified, unless it is handed down by nature, as the laws of physics are (by the way these laws are unbreakable, and if they are not they cease to be accepted as laws), or promoted by a divinity, then they must be subjective because they rely on the interpretation of an individual, a group of individuals or a society of nations to "define what they are.

Fist and Faith asks Skywier to define the objective principles of natural law, I set the same challenge as I did earlier, which deals with the same problem of definition what logical syllogism shows that there is a natural law.

By the way ponder on this: humanity is doomed unless you kill 75% of the population within a period of a year (lets not worry about why), what does natural law say is the correct approach? Where do you obtain that information.

I still maintain that the current international law against genocide is thoroughly subjective modern Western approach. Not wrong in my view, and given recent events in need of strengthening, but unless you can show me a tablet of stone, or a mathematical treatise which proves genocide to be a fundamental wrong in a logical sense, then I maintain that I believe it is a subjectively created law, just one that happens to fit in with my own subjective beliefs.

[Reisheiruhime]

If i post here, I will look very stupid. I agree with both of you, if you compile your information together. I look stupid now.

[Skyweir]

There is no easy or simple way to answer your questions Birinair and F&F .. but I will attempt to elaborate ..

As I dont have access to my law theory texts now .. it is not really that difficult to elicit a definition of Universal Law from an internet search .. however a general search will reveal a wide range of uses of this term .. I have quoted some sources and links for your perusal .. but bare in mind that some sources are a little mamby pamby in their overview.

For a substantive example of Universal Law .. I provided examples of its usage today in the form of the creation of the Nuremburg trial system and the adoption of the fundamental principles of Universal Law into International legislation and the creation of Universal Charters .. per Human Rights Charter etc..

There are many principles of Universal Law as they extend to an extensive range of issues .. ie: Universal Jurisdiction .. Universal Human Rights etc .. and related matters.

This is not a new concept ..yet it is significantly contemporary in its employment .. The concept of Universal Law has been around for generations .. many philosophers or proponents of Universal/Natural Law like; Aquinas, Blackstone and Kant .. have written extensively on this phenomenal yet ambiguous subject.

Natural Law is a concept .. like many concepts .. ie: communism, facism, anarchism .. within which there are no clear formulaes and no concensus of application.

You have to understand this before you begin researching this concept Universal Law ..

You will read very real correlations between Universal/Natural Law with Divine Law .. yet this is not the only correlation. Which is why I have given you imho the more preferred and concrete examples of its substantive application in Interntional Criminal Law.

Universal Law is as Birinair has rightly summised .. and F&F you were correct in your belief that Universal Law is not based on feelings commonly shared regarding morality. Nor are they based on animal behaviours - Natural Law is elicited from among concepts such as the nature of the world and the nature of human beings.

The question of Divine Law however, is arguable .. many Natural Law theorists are proponents also of Divine Law .. but not all are. I do not prescribe a Divine Law interpretational basis for the existence of Universal Law.

I prefer an existentialist view point that Universal Law supports .. and beyond this I have a personal view that there are Universal Laws that extend not only to the laws of physics as Birinair elluded to .. but an interpretation that see's humankind as fundamentally part of the physical world - as in Newton's Universal Laws of Gravitation - such that govern humanity also. But we can explore my views another time

What are the objective principles of Natural/Universal Law, which the international laws are based on?

Well there are several ways of answering this question .. firstly we can examine any of the International Charters created ..

They are based on the basic belief that some crimes are so harmful to humankind-humanity and lets state more clinically - international interests that perpetrators/regimes where relevant need to be addressed by a legal body not constrained or restricted jurisdictioanlly. Hence the objective aspect of the international law principle .. and vis a vis Universal Law upon which international law and international criminal law is based.

The Objective standard : is in the broad application - [international jurisdiction] regardless of state boundaries or state sovereignty .. the international community are all within the scope and mandate of its jurisdiction.

This principle formed the basis of the precedent of the Nuremberg Trials after World War II. Nazi officials who allegedly administered “death camps” were not excused of responsibility by pleading “I was just following orders,” or “I was just doing my duty.”

www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/belgium1126.htm

Three crimes were prosecuted before that first international criminal tribunal: "crimes against peace," that is, wars of aggression; "war crimes" against civilians and prisoners; and "crimes against humanity," such as murder, extermination, enslavement, or other inhumane treatment of an entire civilian population. The Nuremberg Charter also declared each individual responsible for his actions. No one was above the law: high officials could claim no immunity. Nor was anyone below the law: subordinates could not claim that they merely followed orders.

All this reflected three main goals of the Americans who were Nuremberg's principal designers. Above all, they hoped to make war, except for self defense, an international crime. If World War I was to have been a war to end all wars, Nuremberg would be a trial to end all wars.

www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/i ... commentary

Other more loose and may I say less substantial definitions of Universal/Natural Law explain what principles support its existence as a theory.

A natural law is given by nature - our environment.
Humans can't alter it. Like:
-You can't turn back time.
-You can't prevent the motion of the universe.
-No matter how much humans strive to defeat such laws they never succeed. Basing society on natural, universal laws gives unprecedented stability to humanity. Basing society on prophet, ruler and economist quirks and squeaks gives humans the problems they deserve for such foolishness.

www.angelfire.com/hi4/loveandpeace/law.html

I hope you picked up the distinction here bolded by me .. that distinguishes Natural Law/Universal Law from that espoused by Prophets, Rulers and Economists .. who all retain a subjective and precise agenda .. which are not part of an understanding of the much broader Universal/Natural Law objectives.

NATURAL LAW is the intelligence and infinite organising power that silently maintains and guides the evolution of everything in the universe. The activity of every grain of creation and of every level of Nature -- from the tiniest sub-atomic particle to the vast galaxies -- is governed by Natural Law with perfect efficiency so that everything in the universe functions with perfect precision and is in perfect co-ordination with everything else ...

The speciality of the candidates of the Natural Law Party is their expertise in the field of Natural Law. They have become familiar with the deepest knowledge of modern science, which has revealed the Unified Field of Natural Law -- the unified field of intelligence underlying all forms and activities in the entire universe. In addition they have recognised that this field of intelligence is available in human life in the field of consciousness, and they have become experts in the practical programmes that enliven and utilise this fundamental intelligence of Nature for the good of mankind. It is these unique capabilities that make the Natural Law Party competent to offer fulfilment in all areas of society.

www.natural-law-party.org.uk/misc/what- ... al-law.htm

As opposed to the .. as I describe them .. loose definitions of Universal or Natural Law .. I prefer the more substantial applications to explain such notions ..

The Nuremberg war trials were based on the principle of natural law. How else can it bejudged that what people did, while following orders by their own government, was actuallycriminal activity? The Nuremberg war trials clarified that the highest law is not the law made by particular government. The trials clarified that the universal principles of law, natural law, are to be followed by all governments and by all people

"The Belgian law is part of a growing trend towards accountability for human rights crimes. Prosecutions based on universal jurisdiction are an essential part of the emerging system of international justice. They help to break down the wall of immunity with which tyrants and torturers protect themselves in their own countries."

www.hrw.org/justice/

Taking a closer look at the theory of Universal or Natural Law .. depends quite intrinsically on the proponent or theorist ..

Kant's Universal/Natural Law theory and in this case his moral reasoning in support of his theory .. basically covered in the quote below and illustrated by a comparison with principles most readily understood as espoused by proponents of Utilitarianism .. [which form most Western Democratic systems of government and fall more in line with Capitalist/Economic rationalist notions].

Kantian moral reasoning is less ambitious than utilitarian moral reasoning. Does not propose a process that can in principle rank all possible actions or arrangements in terms of happiness-maximization. Rather, it offers a pattern of reasoning by which we can identify whether proposed actions or institutional arrangements would be just or unjust, beneficent or lacking in beneficence. Cannot be guaranteed to identify the optimal course of action in a situation. But any line of action that is considered can be checked to see whether it is part of what justice or beneficence require or forbid. Again, judges beneficence by its contribution to autonomy, not by the quantity of happiness expected to result.

Kantian theory is borrowed for the very purpose that Kant is fundamentally a proponent of Universal Law .. and you can clearly see where Universal Law as that found in the Nuremburg Trial system and the formation of an International Criminal Tribunal under International Law acquires its substance.

Kantians: human life is intrinsically valuable/above all price because humans have considerable capacities for autonomous action. CI forbids action which precludes others’ autonomous action; involves a positive commitment to preserve life, and in a way that some possibility for autonomous action exists.

As opposed to the Utilitarian view which we are most familiar with

Utilitarians aim to achieve the happiest possible world. This may require sacrifice, even of life itself; may involve those unwilling to die; and entails no difference between ending lives by not helping and doing so as a matter of deliberate intervention or policy. Life has a high but derivative value. There is nothing wrong with using another as a mere means, provided that the end in view is a happier result than could have been attained any other way, taking account of the misery the means may have caused.

The Utilitarian view takes the pursuit of happiness as its governing principal .. but not for each person but for the majority .. Utilitarian theory is about maximising happiness by what ever means to secure majority satisfaction.

This notion has its place in most of our western societies today .. and falls into line nicely with Capitalist deteminations. But Universal Law adds the checks and balance .. if you will .. that a subjective notion requires.

We often hear within Utilitarian theory - that ends justifies the means. Universal Law theorists do not support this supposition on this basis.

Ends are always the exact product of the particular means used for achieving them. The ends never “justify the means” because all ends are a function of whatever means are deployed in bringing them about.

Universal Law theorists do not accept the concept of utilising others, coercion or any other detriment which threatens the autonomy of others.

In considering this problem, one also recognizes conflicting duty to humanity. Defined by the Formulae of Humanity or End-In-Itself, this duty requires that one must “act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” (Kant 4:429) Further defining this duty, the Formulae of the Kingdom of Ends states that this idealistic kingdom is “a systematic union of various rational beings through common laws.” (Kant 4:433) Separate from but relating to the imperative regarding Humanity, this Formulae emphasizes the duty of the rational being to the “kingdom;” in resigning one’s sovereignty, but not free will, to this kingdom of universal laws, one subscribes fully to the principle of acting only in accordance with Universal Law. Reinforcing the tenets of the Formulae of Humanity, the imperative procee ...

Well I have to go now .. this has taken me a while to compile today .. and if you dont want to read it all just go to this simple definition if you want a much shorter overview.
www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm

oh yes .. and being that you support a need for Genocide Birinair .. and being that Genocide is one of the very crimes legislated against under International < Universal Law > Law .. what is your basis for making this claim?

A utilitarian means to a world population problem? The end being the elimination of several million people? Clearly! On what basis would you then determine who would qualify for extermination?

This smacks of a very familiar (WW2) facist remedy to a similar problem?

[Birinair]

I wish I knew how to do this quote business.

Skywier, I have not posed the question to suggest that there is any solution, it was posed to show this- if it were clear that humanity would fail unless a significant proportion of humanity were killed then that is a dilemma for which "law" should give an answer- my understanding is that natural law as you propose it doesn't. If it is, as I understand you, natural law to promote the interests of humanity (as opposed to humans), then I would suggest the following syllogism.

Humanity is the protection of human dignity both bodily and spiritually, and arises out of a human understanding of his/her fellow beings, and an application of respect to those fellow beings (respect including condign punishment for perpetrators of wrongs in law).

To be humane requires interactions between humans.

ergo Humanity requires humans.

If that syllogism holds water then natural law requires humans as a species to survive, but if natural law prevents bodily and spiritual dignity being interfered with, presuming an absence of sufficient volunteers, it seems to me that natural law is unable to answer the dilemma posed in the question.The utiliterian approach would give an answer, as would the fascist approach as you indicate, the point is they would give an answer because they are adaptable human constructs. My argument with you is not over the importance of a drive towards humanity as I have described it, but over the dangers inherent in not recognising that it is a human construct, and applying to it the definition of external to mankind arising ouot of "what"?

Lets not confuse the practical and the thoretical here. International law is a necessity in the modern world, but I argue it is a man made construct. The theory of natural law states: that natural law is not a man made construct but is an everlasting truth, unconnected with the subjective wishes of mankind or any portions of it. I see the danger of a proseltysing religion of natural law, where any disagreement means that the individual or society that does not agree is fair game.[/i][/code]

[Fist and Faith]

Other more loose and may I say less substantial definitions of Universal/Natural Law explain what principles support its existence as a theory.

A natural law is given by nature - our environment.
Humans can't alter it. Like:
-You can't turn back time.
-You can't prevent the motion of the universe.
-No matter how much humans strive to defeat such laws they never succeed. Basing society on natural, universal laws gives unprecedented stability to humanity. Basing society on prophet, ruler and economist quirks and squeaks gives humans the problems they deserve for such foolishness.

www.angelfire.com/hi4/loveandpeace/law.html

Thank you! This is exactly what I'm looking for.
From that page:

1st law of the universe:
Look at the stars above, look to the environment that surrounds you, look towards your body, look into your ideas, and you will find one common thing: Change.

1st law of life:
You observe that the billion-year-old entity of life is governed by the law of change. You observe that life grows.

1st law of fauna:
You observe that fauna is governed by change and growth. You also observe that fauna is nourishing & repositioning.

1st law of humanity:
You observe that humanity is governed by change, growth, nourishment and repositioning, you also observe that humanity rearranges its environment.

Your 1st law:
You observe that you are governed by change, growth, nourishment & repositioning, and an ability to rearrange your environment. You also observe that you rearrange your environment creative or destructive.
You can not deny the universe to change, life to grow, fauna to move and nourish, humanity to rearrange its environment. But you can and must deny rearranging your environment in a destructive way.

If the small chart of non-concentric circles-within-circles is reproducable here, I don't have a clue as to how. But this seems to me to be a good way to look for the objectivity I've been asking about. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not we should feel bound by these principles, but it is an attempt at true objectivity.

Unfortunately, it is flawed. First, in its insistence on viewing life as "nourishing & repositioning." (Repositioning is not explained or defined, but no matter.) There are many different "lenses" through which we can view life. (Indeed, all of reality.) This nourishment cycle is probably as good as any, but it is definitely the personal preference of the author. (I happen to like the idea.)

The second, and bigger, flaw is the last sentence - the conclusion: "But you can and must deny rearranging your environment in a destructive way." This is also the personal preference of the author. (Mine too.) Since nothing else (at least, it would seem, nothing else the author is aware of) rearranges the environment, there is no possibility of it being an objective standard.

NATURAL LAW is the intelligence and infinite organising power that silently maintains and guides the evolution of everything in the universe. The activity of every grain of creation and of every level of Nature -- from the tiniest sub-atomic particle to the vast galaxies -- is governed by Natural Law with perfect efficiency so that everything in the universe functions with perfect precision and is in perfect co-ordination with everything else ...

Very nice. This site - www.natural-law-party.org.uk/misc/what- ... al-law.htm - goes on to say the following. But I've substituted their "Natural Law" with what is now in bold, to show where this idea originally came from. LOL

The infinite variety of problems facing the life of the individual and the different fields of national administration results from violation of the laws of nature. When we do not act in accordance with the Tao, the automatic result is stress, frustration, sickness, crime, violence, and all the other forms of negativity that beset society.

Since all problems have the same universal origin, they all have the same universal solution: restoring life to be fully in accord with the Tao.

I say the exact same things at my site. The difference is that the Natural Law Party seems to think they have broken the Tao down into various specific components, whereas Taoism says, The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. I say "seems to think" because the site doesn't list these specific objective principles. These sites you've pointed us to give the general direction that the attempts to find an objective basis for morality have taken, but I wish they'd give specifics. I suppose there are books out there that might have more detail.

Taking a closer look at the theory of Universal or Natural Law .. depends quite intrinsically on the proponent or theorist ..

Am I misunderstanding this? Did you just say that an objective principle differs from person to person?

Universal Law theorists do not accept the concept of utilising others, coercion or any other detriment which threatens the autonomy of others.

Neither do I.

Well I have to go now .. this has taken me a while to compile today ..

Your effort is appreciated!!!!!!!:) I feel like we're finally actually on the same page. We certainly disagree about the content of that page, but...

and if you dont want to read it all just go to this simple definition if you want a much shorter overview.
www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm

This page says, "Though there are different versions of natural law theory..." Again, objective principles can't have more than one version.

[Skyweir]

I see the danger of a proseltysing religion of natural law, where any disagreement means that the individual or society that does not agree is fair game

what on earth does that mean exactly? Personally I dont support a connection between Universal/Natural Law and 'religion' at all. And if there are disagreements in kind .. do you suggest Natural Law would seek the elimination ['fair game'] of its opponents???

Nevertheless .. I do understand your concern with the origin of Natural Law .. but I disagree with your founding premise .. Natural/Universal Law is not synonymous Divine Law, as you are wont to suggest: just because some proponents have made that connection

.. this limited view is not the only line of thought.

I guess it is difficult not having a definitive and quantifiable definition .. and this I agree. Universal Law/Natural Law are not absolutes .. they provide a 'theory' or broad formula to promoting humanity .. and when it comes to application there is often a great divide between that function and theoretical principal. Like most political theories .. ie: communism is just one.

Which is where humans inevitably come in to the picture .. Ultimately .. Universal Law is a human construct .. as all constructs are .. It as a concept has been elicited by humans [philosophers and great thinkers of our time] and expanded upon by other mortal minds ..

Its claim of being elicited from observable Universal Laws like 'Gravitation' .. rests on a realisation that there are laws/absolutes and solid notions that are existent in our Universe that affect our planet and its inhabitants .. and that there is order in all things and that this order is observable. That there is also order, discipline and progression in 'humanity' .. and that law that can be evinced from this thought, forms the basis of such concepts as Universal and Natural Law.

Whether it began with Thomas Aquinas or long before him .. is irrelevant .. this school of thought has been added to by a host of other human beings .. in an endeavour to elicit what is absolutely a human construct based on principles that have been elicited from the Physical [Universe] World.

Natural Law in addition explores the mind of man .. and acknowledges that intelligence is also governed by laws .. and is a commodity/attribute to be highly valued. Thus the pursuit of 'humanity' is a concept beyond just a study into humaness imho and is an extension on the intelligence shared by humans.

However, to answer your scenario .. Universal Law you are right would not condone Genocide .. as explained above .. but it would look to the Natural World for answers.

I do not believe there is a critical population problem facing this planet imho .. the problem is more to do with land mis-usage, education .. economic rationalism: western monopolisation of the majority of global resources and wealth .. etc.. Besides as much as the developing world faces serious overpopulation .. much of the developed world is experiencing negative growth factor.

However, lets just say that population growth is critical for the entire planet. Universal law would not be able to provide a popularly satisfactory remedy .. I suggest proponents of UL would see the physical world as providing order:some natural remedy .. that would not involve coercion or human instigated crimes against humanity.

Sickness may be one; global insustainability may be another; education and research may be another; a re-evaluation of global economics may be another; a re-evaluation of global resouce management may be another .. etc.

The latter possibilities would probably be the primary preferrable remedies instigated prior to critical levels: as in today: there are scientists working towards addressing global issues of this nature .. pressing the need for re-evaluation of economic imperatives and global resource management. None of this is new or revolutionary thought.

You however, did not answer my question.

being that you support a need for Genocide Birinair .. and being that Genocide is one of the very crimes legislated against under International < Universal Law > Law .. what is your basis for making this claim? A utilitarian means to a world population problem? The end being the elimination of several million people? ... On what basis would you then determine who would qualify for extermination?

p.s. to quote something .. on the reply post page at the top where you can select bold or italics .. there is also a quote button. Highlight the text you want to appear in a quote window and then select quote [4th box from the left(the bold box)]

[Skyweir]

Am I misunderstanding this? Did you just say that an objective principle differs from person to person?

"Though there are different versions of natural law theory..." Again, objective principles can't have more than one version.

you must have posted these questions before I had finished posting myself

Again .. there have been many thinkers and philosophers of Natural/Universal Law theory .. as such it is not an absolute eventhough it is based on an absolute! It is still at the end of the day a 'theory' .. that has been employed today in a substantive form - ie:Nuremburg (sp?) UN etc.. Universal/Natural Law bases all its principals on an objective standard ..

There are a broad range of uses of this term and some proponents view Natural Law slightly differently .. which should come as no surprise .. as in the Natural Law Party .. this is not a school of philosophical thinkers but a political party which may choose to use this term differently from say a philosopher: Thomas Aquinas whose main priority is to elicit Universal Law.

Aquinas takes a comprehensive exploration of Natural Law .. and his arguements are added upon by say Kant .. and so on .. hence the 'natural' progression of any school of thought ..

Universal Law as I have stated is a human construct .. and although the object remains static .. the activity of the route to that object may vary greatly depending upon a particular proponent using it.

Which is why in the establishment and justification for Nuremburg Trials and the creation of 'Crimes against Humanity' .. philosophers like Kant and Aquinas would more than likely have been heavily relied upon.

Regrettably you have relied on those sources I would describe as useful but 'fluffy' .. or the more 'loose expressions of Natural Law'. There were a range of sites I linked to provide an overview; including a Kant paper and in particular, on that last site where you quoted part of the definition, there are also links to other pages that give a more substantive overview of Natural/Universal Law .. worth perusing.

The Natural Law Party is a political party .. lobbying in the UK .. I do not subscribe to their individual interpretation of 'Universal Law' .. yet there are also common themes that do resonnate with me, clearly.

I also cited Human Rights Watch .. as in practical terms they define Universal Law in their every day exercise of seeking Universal Law based remedies.

In the beginning of my post I expressed the need; as with all theories not just this one 'Universal/Natural Law'; .. to take a broad overview of sources upon which to gain a better understanding of this concept.

.. however a general search will reveal a wide range of uses of this term .. I have quoted some sources and links for your perusal .. but bare in mind that some sources are a little mamby pamby in their overview.

Because uses of this 'term' may vary .. it does not detriment the objective stance of 'Universal Law' application.

and Happy Easter to all and to all .. a good night

[Fist and Faith]

you must have posted these questions before I had finished posting myself

Yeah, just barely. I was surprised to see your post right after I had posted.

Regrettably you have relied on those sources I would describe as useful but 'fluffy' .. or the more 'loose expressions of Natural Law'.

That's ok, because I've only been interested in the objective origins of these Laws. I thought you have been claiming that the international laws are based on objective principles that clearly tell us what is right and wrong, not subjectively, but objectively, and that's what I was looking for in those sites.

However, it looks as though you are not claiming that type of objectivity, but only the objective application of these international laws. You are, I think, saying that the Natural Laws that our international laws are based on - the Natural Laws that tell us what is right and what is wrong - are not, themselves, objective, but only subjectively derived from some objective principles of nature. Which is what I assumed, and what those sites showed. Whether these "Natural" Laws are the subjective derivation of objective principles, the divine decree of someone's belief system, a majority vote, or someone's personal opinion, it is subjective. Just as my opinion of what is right and what is wrong is subjective. So I'm not particularly driven to learn everything about any of the various systems of Natural Law.

[Skyweir]

then according to your own definition of 'objectivity' it is an impossibility of anything [philosophy/principle] in this world being truly objective.

I disagree .. but not entirely ..

So what you are asserting is that if anything is derived by human interpretation - then it is ultimately subjective.

Thus because 'Natural Universal Law' is a human derived philosophy it fails in any attempt to be representatively 'objective' ..

Aquinas claims a Divine Law relationship/basis for Natural Law .. but to me this is irrelevant in its claim of being an objective philosophy or Law. So what does make a philosophy objective in your opinion?

As Law's exist .. like gravity and time; lets say observable and possibly relative absolutes .. Universal/Natural Law is derived from these absolutes.Gravity is an objective law- do you agree? .. all are affected and bound by this law .. yet it is a principle derived by; human observation-elicited from the Physical world ..

Lets look at the fictional Land .. 'earthpower' exists and law with it .. and we know that those who can elicit the law can exercise earthpower. Yet the law existed prior to human/the inhabitants discovery of it .. evenso, the law is inevitably derived by the inhaibitants of the Land. Does this make the Law of the Land .. subjective?

Does this make the Law of the Land .. a subjective principal just because it has been observed to exist and elicited by humans? who or what else is there to elicit law that already exists?

I realise it is more difficult to apply this process to Universal and Natural Law theory .. but it is not dissimilar ..

I thought you have been claiming that the international laws are based on objective principles. However, it looks as though you are not claiming that type of objectivity, but only the objective application of these international laws

I am still of the position that Universal Law is based on objective principals, but I stated that the term has wide usage. Which is quite different than stating that it is not based on an objective standard/principles.

I do not agree that just because it is derived by human processes that it fails to be objective in principal .. the principals of Universal Law speak for themselves ..

as I have already shown ..

If we accept your test for objectivity as 'the rule' .. then there is no such principal as objectivity ..

And in some degree .. I think that could possibly be correct .. but if this is the only test allowable then Universal Law provides the most precise standard of 'suedo-objectiveness' allowable under this test.

And as you have said .. it provides that very standard in its application ..

However, nothing is perfect in application .. as there is often a great practical divide between theory and its application.

Evenso, the theory does support the objective standard evidenced in its application .. therefore it must be based on objective principals.

[birdandbear]

Aw man, you guys...

I consider myself an intelligent woman, but...

This thread makes my brain hurt.

You guys are all magnificent!

[Fist and Faith]

Hey birdandbear, Turiya Foul, and caamora (congrats on the title, btw:)),
Unless we've beaten this topic to death, I do wish you'd join in. It's all just a learning process. I've never read any Kant, Descarte, Nietzche, Hume, or anybody else who would be in a Philosophy 101 class. Ayn Rand and Richard Bach are it for me. We're all just thinking and talking.

then according to your own definition of 'objectivity' it is an impossibility of anything [philosophy/principle] in this world being truly objective.

It is extremely difficult. Let's look at a few choices.

What if we decide to judge the rightness of our behaviors by a majority vote? Obviously, this isn't objective.

What if we judge ourselves by the 10 Commandments? This would be an objective standard. No human can decide what the 10 Commandments are. At least I've never heard of anyone arguing over translations.

What if we judge ourselves by animal behavior? (As I originally thought you were saying Natural Law does.) If every species behaves the same way in regard to some particular topic, that behavior might be considered the right/correct way for us to act. The problem is that I've never heard of any behavior that was universal in the animal kingdom, so we would have to decide whether to go by what the majority of species do, or narrow it down to just primates (and hope that works), or something else.

But even if we do find an objective standard among those choices (vote, divine decree, animal behavior), the decision of which choice to use as our standard is subjective! And if the choice of what to use as our standard is subjective, does it matter if the standard itself is objective?

So what you are asserting is that if anything is derived by human interpretation - then it is ultimately subjective.

That's pretty much the definition of subjective. Interpreting means that we see more than one possibility, and we choose one.

Thus because 'Natural Universal Law' is a human derived philosophy it fails in any attempt to be representatively 'objective' ..

It cannot do otherwise. We make decisions, choosing one thing over another.

So what does make a philosophy objective in your opinion?

I think there are different categories of philosophy, and I don't think all of them can be objective. In fact, I'd much prefer if some of them must be subjective, so I can make my own decision. But other types might be answered objectively. Ayn Rand had a couple of good ideas. For example: Does anyone have the right to charity? Is anyone obligated to give to another? Is it morally correct to take something from one person if it is done "for the public good"? An objective way to decide (her philosophy is called Objectivism) might be to see if it will work under all circumstances. In the US, those who want to make their own way can do so. But those who want to live off of the labor of others can also do so - quite easily. Welfare and stealing are two ways.

But what about being stranded on a desert island? The one who wants to make her own way will live - assuming the island can support human life. If the other shouts out about his right to be supported by the labor of others, he'll be dead pretty soon. Starvation, exposure to the elements, attack by animals... If he wants to live, he must convert to the philosophy that everyone should make their own way in this world.

The objective answer is, if your philosophy of how to stay alive gets you dead, it is wrong.

In Atlas Shrugged

Spoiler

those who loved the mind and human achievement left society. They left all of the politicians and (other) thieves to themselves - everyone trying to live as they claimed was their right, off of others, with nobody around who was willing to do the work and be taken advantage of.

Not much of a spoiler really. In over a thousand pages, showing various applications of this philosophy, she is very convincing. Examining those applications is fun, whether you know the end result or not. And there's some other fun stuff too.

As Law's exist .. like gravity and time; lets say observable and possibly relative absolutes .. Universal/Natural Law is derived from these absolutes.Gravity is an objective law- do you agree? .. all are affected and bound by this law .. yet it is a principle derived by; human observation-elicited from the Physical world ..

Altogether true. But the "Law" of gravity is not up for debate. If you don't believe it exists, you are free to step off of the Empire State Building. And you can measure gravity. (9.8 meters/sec/sec on Earth, IIRC. But it's been a long time.) But how does any of this lead to our international laws? That's a different type of derived principle. One that cannot be derived from objective principles/physical laws.

Lets look at the fictional Land .. 'earthpower' exists and law with it .. and we know that those who can elicit the law can exercise earthpower. Yet the law existed prior to human/the inhabitants discovery of it .. evenso, the law is inevitably derived by the inhaibitants of the Land. Does this make the Law of the Land .. subjective?

Does this make the Law of the Land .. a subjective principal just because it has been observed to exist and elicited by humans? who or what else is there to elicit law that already exists?

Oy!! This was touched upon in that big discussion about pacifism that began with my innocent homage to Mhoram. LOL What a long, winding path these discussions take! Only SRD can answer this. If the Earthpower told Berek how to do things, what runes to carve into the Staff, etc, because the Earthpower knew how its own potential could best be realized, then that's a pretty objective Law. Maybe the people of the Land could do things differently, but the Earthpower would not respond as well.

But if Mhoram's attempt to change things, to find Lore more compatable with the Oath of Peace, would have been just as good from the beginning (before the Staff became the Law, so that the Law was damaged when the Staff was destroyed), but the Earthpower chose the other way for reasons other than that which works best, then the Law of Kevin's Lore is subjective.

However, nothing is perfect in application .. as there is often a great practical divide between theory and its application.

Ain't that the truth!! Keeps life interesting, eh?

[Fist and Faith]

bump for Dlan_Mhoram

[Dlan_Mhoram]

Give me one day to read all the posts and I ´ll edit this post with my opinion.