Esquire Bertissimmo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 4:19 pm
BrianBaru wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2024 3:08 pm
You are missing the point. I am suggesting what you call the Judeo-Christian teachings could be the result of a Natural Law. It codifies those things that should be avoided because they could lead to the destruction of humanity, if all partake.
All Life is designed to survive and reproduce. I referenced Scripture, yes, because those were the first commands from God, just to show the importance of reproduction. Even without God, survival and reproduction is the prime directive. Humans may have received this directive from God, or figured it out on their own. This is an absolute of life. Morality are those rules which keeps humanity alive. I suggest that we test if something is indeed an absolute by asking, “If everyone did it, do we survive?”
I referenced Thatcher in reference to stealing. Government stealing is the worst kind, because you can’t defend against it. The Beatles wrote about this in Taxman. You can submit, or leave.
I think my own morals are probably best described by natural law too, but I come to very different conclusions on the moral questions you've put forward.
My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?
An alternative natural law perspective on homosexuality is that same-sex relationships can embody the principles of human flourishing, emotional fulfillment, and mutual growth, extending beyond just procreation. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of love, fidelity, and support within relationships, aligning with natural law's focus on rationality, moral agency, and respect for human dignity. It recognizes the capacity of same-sex couples to contribute positively to personal development and the broader community, suggesting that such relationships can be morally aligned with the principles of natural law.
In lots of ways socialism also comports with natural law. Collective ownership can lead to greater common good in some cases. Give what you can, take what you need, is an economic principle that promotes human dignity. Property rights have never been absolute and something like the responsible use of resources for the common good seems to plausibly align with at least part of human nature (e.g., resource sharing within clans or families). There are good reasons to be skeptical of the benefits of real-life socialism, but in principle it doesn't seem at odds with a natural law worldview.
“My understanding of natural law is that human beings possess intrinsic values that govern our reasoning and behavior. Natural law principles are considered universal and are based on human nature, reason, and morality. It seems odd to me to reduce this entirely to something like a compulsion to be procreative - maybe this is some perspective other than natural law?”
I too believe morality is written in our DNA. Survival and reproduction are the most basic. Without those two, we die out.
What is written? Without absolutes, everything becomes relative.
Here are two examples of an issue of morality as put forth in two major religions:
The example in Islam on forgiveness Sahih Muslim, Book 17: 4206
There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah's Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid's) curse that he had huried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.
The example of Christianity on forgiveness (John 8:1-11)
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."
So one religion teaches killing for sin, the other teaches forgiveness. Which is morally right? If all sinners are killed, eventually we run out of people.
We are all sinners and fall short. But against what standard do we hold ourselves? Survival and reproduction may seem simplistic as a basis of morality. It is an absolute standard that can be applied with a little thought.