Rendering Unto Caesar: Natural Law vs. Artificial Law‏

[sophia_sadek]

One morning, while purchasing coffee at a local watering hole, I heard a fundamentalist say something about man's law vs. God's law. At the time I marveled how people come up with such sharp distinctions. Freedom of religion deserves no respect because it is something that human beings came up with. Stoning sinners, on the other hand, is a duty

Comments

[mutive]

Oh, hey! It's Tuesday!

With that said, I agree that marriage is a fairly arbitrary and quite artificial institution, so isn't really something you can hold up to the "natural law" debate.

[sophia_sadek]

There are a variety of approaches to natural law. Some of them are quite arbitrary, such as the one proposed by the advocate for natural law in the platonic dialog I mentioned. Others are based on studies of animals that are similar to people. Another approach is to study people who are least indoctrinated into the ways of artificial society. Each has its advantages and its problems.

[american_geist]

Sophocles' Antigone gets at something similar. Antigone contends that despite it being forbidden by the law as set forth by Creon, she has what you could say is a "natural" moral responsibility to bury her brother which supercedes Creon's law. It's pretty fascinating how far back this debate goes.

Personally, I see a lot of problems with the idea of natural law, but it's a great debate.

[sophia_sadek]

In many ways it is a moot debate because we do not live in nature but in a world of our own making. On the other hand, the yearning to live more naturally comes with the dissatisfactions of that plastic existence.

[chron_job]

How many philosophical differences arise because of small nuances in semantics!

One might think of "Natural Law" as a simple description of the way the world is. Making assertions about how society should be arranged and how its arrangements enforced based on "natural law" are ripe with possible is/ought confusion.

But the word "Natural Law" is inherently burdened with undertones of metaphysical authority. Laws are authoritative statements of normative behavior ("Scientific Law" being just a metaphor). So, the very use of the phrase 'Natural Law' predisposes the user to this Is/Ought confusion.

Of course the God's Law versus Man's Law is a totally different dynamic.

[sophia_sadek]

The ultimate source of philosophical differences probably has more to do the personal agendas of the various advocates than with semantic nuance.

The advocates of "God's law" fail to take into account the fact that God was crafted in the human image.

[pastorlenny]

Is it natural to view homosexuals as fractionally human to the point that they do not deserve the same rights as everyone else?

Are you asking if it is "natural" to view the Other as Less Than? It obviously is. How is this material to anything?

[sophia_sadek]

It may seem obvious to you. The conditioning that comes with obsessing over ancient literature tends to alienate people from their natural sentiments. It could be said that some level of homophobia is natural in people who have little or no experience with homosexuals. I do not see homophobia as the actual source of the urge to treat homosexuals as less than human.

[pastorlenny]

obsessing over ancient literature tends to alienate people from their natural sentiments

Indeed. In fact, the Punic Wars were largely the result of excessive Bible study!

[sophia_sadek]

And here I thought it was an attempt on the part of Rome to expand its hegemony into more distant territories.