Natural Law A recent post disputed the concept of "Natural Law", an idea often cited by Libertarians and Conservatives to support their world view. I call myself a Green Libertarian (explained on my web page), but I have not bought into the "Natural Law" idea. For the reasons given, and then some. In Europe, and in the US during the 1950's, Natural Law was a widely accepted idea. There is a constant, unchanging Human Nature. And certain behaviors that "we" all agree are natural (that is, in accordance with our Human Nature). And other behaviors that are "un-natural". The Natural Law concept surfaced during the Senate confirmation hearing on Clarence Thomas, before Anita Hill entered the picture. The basic problem here is that people get their ideas about what is "natural" from the society they grow up in. If you see everyone around you doing X, you accept that X is natural. And when the US was a common "Melting Pot" culture with many shared values, a Natural Law sounded reasonable. But with the rise of "multi-culturalism" it has fallen out of favor. Look at the "Prediction of Beryl Crowe" file on my web page politics section (under Immigration) for more on this. The reasonableness of Natural Law reflects an ignorance of history and anthropology, I think. Consider some of the things that are or were taken to be natural in OTHER societies (past and present): Slavery was natural for most of human history. Human sacrifice was natural for socities all over the world. For the Cannintes, being religious meant having sex with a priestess. Hey, now there is a religion that I could really get devoted to :-) The Etruscans were so open about sex that it shocked the Romans, and the Romans invented the toga party and the orgy! For the ancient Egyptians (and also during the Kingdom of Hawaii) it was natural for a man to marry his sister. Especially a Leader. To the Shuar people of the Amazon, it was natural to kill people of other tribes and cut off their heads, to shrink the heads and keep them as trophies. (I mean what could be more natural than that?) The Spartans considered it normal to kill a child that had a disability. For the Aztecs, it was perfectly natural to wage a war to capture thousands of people and kill them by cutting out their heart. INSERT (from an admiring fan) To answer your question, let me quote a bit from a book on the Aztecs: "If ever there was a people dedicated to martial prowess, it was the warring Aztecs. Nothing was more honorable in their eyes than a manly death in combat, or as a captive offered up to the gods on the sacrificial stone. Warriors who died in battle or as human sacrifices and women who died in childbirth were deemed worthy of an afterlife [...] Aztec orators praised, in particular, the glorious end of men on the battlefield. Indeed, the records tell of one thanking his creator for allowing him "to see these many deaths of my brother and nephews." Their poets sang of such a passing. One wrote: "There is nothing like death in war, nothing like the flowery death so precious to him who gives life. Far off I see it: My heart yearns for it!" [...] When a baby boy came into the world, the midwife held onto him, as though he were her captive, and let out war cries. She then exhorted the child to heed her words. "Thy home is not here," she intoned, "for thou art an eagle or a jaguar" -- a lone predator. "Here is only the place of thy nest," she told the infant. "War is thy task. Thou shalt give drink, nourishment, food to the sun." She was referring, of course, to blood. The battlefield was viewed as a sacred place, and the midwife went on to speak of the honor of dying on it as a warrior or as a captive on the sacrificial stone: "Perhaps thou wilt merit death by the obsidian knife." Poets elaborated on the nobility of such a death. "May his heart not falter," goes one incantation to a god on behalf of a warrior. "May he desire, may he long for the flowery death by the obsidian knife. May he savor the scent, savor the sweetness of the darkness." END OF INSERT If there were a constant Human Nature and a Natural Law that comes from it, how could so MANY people have missed it for so long? Millions of people for thousands of years got human nature all wrong? And ideas can change during a single lifetime. I grew up in Kansas City, Missouri during the 1950's and the natural attitudes in the "white" community towards blacks was, well some of you would be offended if were to tell you. I have see a big change here, but I can't say that all of it was in "society": I also moved from a working class environment in Missouri to and academic community in Wisconsin. WHAT NEXT? Trying to predict what will be considered "natural" in the future is also an interesting game. For example, during the "oil crisis" days of the 1970's, there was much concern about both saving oil/energy and of promoting the "natural". If asked what would be considered "proper/politically correct" in 1990, I NEVER would have expected that polyester or cotton coats would be considered "better" than natural animal fur. Polyester is made from petroleum, and cotton is one of the most environmentally destructive crops. I would not have believed a time traveler who came back to say that in 1998 "animal rights" would be seen by many as being as important as human rights, and people would be protesting the use of experiments on mice and monkeys to develop treatments for people. REPLY: Subject: Re: Natural Law Date: Sat, 07 Feb 1998 00:25:18 -0800 From: HASSLER Reply-To: rwoodman@gte.net Organization: gte.net Newsgroups: alt.politics References: 1 HASSLER, the devious alter ego of mild mannered RLW has emerged to address NATURAL LAW. Old HASSLER, feeling especially feisty after downing a gallon of Tang, decided to delve deep into the mysteries of Natural Law. Now, HASSLER is by nature a philosophical fellow who has studied at some of the best universities in the worst of states. But alas, HASS could not remember SQUAT about Natural Law (in the political sense of course). So armed only with a computer, highlighter and a philosophical library of exactly 10 books, HASSLER locked himself in his study and came up with the answers to many nagging questions. jim blair wrote: > Natural Law > > A recent post disputed the concept of "Natural Law", an idea > often cited by Libertarians and Conservatives to support their > world view. HASSLER checked into this and finds that indeed, he (as a conservative) does subscribe to the principle of natural law. > > > I call myself a Green Libertarian (explained on my web page), > but I have not bought into the "Natural Law" idea. For the > reasons given, and then some. Getting a little upset about the "Green Libertarian" thing. HASSLER does not like to take needless forays into the homepages of strangers. However, the page seems to be indicative of a versatile and considerable intellect. HASS proceeds with caution. > > > In Europe, and in the US during the 1950's, Natural Law was a > widely accepted idea. HASSLER wasn't alive during the 1950's, but being as how it was such a hotbed of originality and philosophical development (right), your statement has been accepted as truth. > There is a constant, unchanging Human > Nature. And certain behaviors that "we" all agree are natural > (that is, in accordance with our Human Nature). And other > behaviors that are "un-natural". The Natural Law concept > surfaced during the Senate confirmation hearing on Clarence > Thomas, before Anita Hill entered the picture. > > The basic problem here is that people get their ideas about > what is "natural" from the society they grow up in. If you > see everyone around you doing X, you accept that X is natural. > And when the US was a common "Melting Pot" culture with many > shared values, a Natural Law sounded reasonable. But with the > rise of "multi-culturalism" it has fallen out of favor. Oh no, HASS is having to fight back his NEARLY UNCONTROLLABLE URGE to fire up about this. However, the wad has been held. > > > Look at the "Prediction of Beryl Crowe" file on my web page > politics section (under Immigration) for more on this. > > The reasonableness of Natural Law reflects an ignorance of > history and anthropology, I think. OK, the wad must be released! HASSLER digs down deep into his magical store of reference material and submits the following : The theory of natural law is the view that moral values are fixed features of the universe which all humanity can discover through reason. Strictly speaking, according to natural law theorists, there is only one highest principle of natural law (such as "we ought to be sociable"). Subsidiary moral rules and civil laws are derived from this (such as "we ought not murder"). These subsidiary rules carry the force of natural law to the degree that they are necessary for the fulfillment of the highest obligation. Natural law theorists differ as to whether the highest natural law is (a) a feature of God's reason, (b) created by God's will, or (c) a Platonic-like value independent of but co-eternal with God. In any case, it is eternal insofar as it is distinct from both human-created laws (such as "drive only on the right hand side of the road"), and provisional divine mandates (such as "don't eat pork"). > > > Consider some of the things that are or were taken to be > natural in OTHER societies (past and present): While putting a Tricky CD in (Pre-Millenium Tension for you Tricky fans), HASSLER mutters to Dr. Blair (with a little more than normal satisfaction): "Please read the above definition of natural law." > > > Slavery was natural for most of human history. While HASSLER agrees that is true, he finds it strange that has been brought into the "Natural Law" debate. > > > For the Aztecs, it was perfectly natural to wage a war to capture > thousands of people and kill them by cutting out their heart. > > For the Cannintes, being religious meant having sex with a priestess. > Hey, now there is a religion that I could really get devoted to :-) > > The Etruscans were so open about sex that it shocked the Romans, > and the Romans invented the toga party and the orgy! > > For the ancient Egyptians (and also during the Kingdom of > Hawaii) it was natural for a man to marry his sister. > Especially a Leader. > > To the Shuar people of the Amazon, it was natural to kill people > of other tribes and cut off their heads, to shrink the heads and > keep them as trophies. (I mean what could be more natural than > that?) Sipping on Tang and grooving to the beat, HASSLER reads the above 5 bits of trivia with little more than passing interest. > > > If there were a constant Human Nature and a Natural Law that > comes from it, how could so MANY people have missed it for > so long? Millions of people for thousands of years got human > nature all wrong? > > And ideas can change during a single lifetime. > > I grew up in Kansas City, Missouri during the 1950's and the > natural attitudes in the "white" community towards blacks was, > well some of you would be offended if were to tell you. I have > see a big change here, but I can't say that all of it was in > "society": I also moved from a working class environment in > Missouri to and academic community in Wisconsin. HASS is slightly confused right now. Time to tap into the CONSIDERABLE problem solving abilities hidden underneath the calm exterior. Viola! HASSLER has the elusive answer! However, out of nothing more than sadistic pleasure, HASSLER will make the POLITICAL JUNKIES wait. > > > WHAT NEXT? > > Trying to predict what will be considered "natural" in the > future is also an interesting game. For example, during > the "oil crisis" days of the 1970's, there was much concern about > both saving oil/energy and of promoting the "natural". If asked > what would be considered "proper/politically correct" in 1990, > I NEVER would have expected that polyester or cotton coats would > be considered "better" than natural animal fur. Polyester is > made from petroleum, and cotton is one of the most environmentally > destructive crops. HASSLER agrees wholeheartedly. > > > I would not have believed a time traveler who came back to say that > in 1998 "animal rights" would be seen by many as being as important > as human rights, and people would be protesting the use of experiments > on mice and monkeys to develop treatments for people. It is now that ORGASMIC MOMENT when HASSLER details why he has bothered to take time out of his otherwise busy schedule of spending money and smoking Dunhills. HASS believes that Professor Blair has confused NATURAL LAW with HUMAN NATURE. It is however a mistake that is easy to make. Natural law is a thing that is independent of human nature. Natural law is discovered only through overcoming the CRUDE, RUDE and SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE instincts of human nature by turning to reason. Regarding human nature, HASSLER has decided that Dr. Blair is extremely adept at observing the subtleties of human behavior and commends Jim Blair on an intellectual journey into nuances of Human Nature. Dr. Blair (no doubt feverishly patting himself on the back over HASSLER's praise) has escaped the HASSLING that HASSLER so loves to dole out. Undaunted, HASSLER goes looking for his favorite prey: Racists. Hi, My, what an interesting reply! While I can accept the idea there IS (out there in the Universe somewhere) a system of moral values that are fixed features of the universe, independent of the human race, this idea has no consequence for either me or humanity unless these values (and the behaviors they imply) can be known. The further claim is that they CAN be known, and by "human reason". Indeed that ALL humanity can discover them through reason. That should include the Aztecs, Shuar, animal rights activists, and others with strange values. So how is it that some whole cultures (and millions of people) missed "we ought not murder"? And so many more missed "we ought to be sociable"? And if some entire cultures so misunderstood the Natural Laws of the Universe for so long (thousands of years), how can anyone be certain that what you or me anyone else SAYS are the Natural Laws, "really" are? Or, how can I know that what I might reason them to be is not as far off the mark as, say an Aztec priest? Or (even worse) KNOW that the Aztec priest was not right and ME all wrong? I meam just MAYBE, the whole point of human existance IS to catch other people and cut out their heart and hold it up to the sun while it is still beating. Ever consider that? And I would expect (reason?) that there would be a DIFFERENT set of moral values (if such things exist at all) for humans than for dolphins, or for the six eyed qxotizal of Vega II, since they have 3 sexes and must eat most of their children to survive. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.