Re: Things that don't evolve

Why does "Natural Law" always look like the "moral code" of the
proponent? One needs to recall that there was also "long pork" before the
Europeans took over Polynesia.
Dave

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:32:32 -0500 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some matters
remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But the
prohibition on interest had to give way.

True. But you have to distinguish ethical codes and positive law from
Natural Law. Ethical codes and positive law can change with
circumstances. The legitimacy of ethical codes and positive law depends
on whether they comport with Natural Law. Ethical codes and positive law
thus ideally are specific applications of the general Natural Law to
particular times and cultures. Natural Law, however, does not change,
because it derives directly from the character of God, whose character
and attributes do not change.

For example, God is, was, and always will be perfectly just and
compassionate. The principles of fairness and mercy thus must always
underlie positive law, including money lending laws, for such laws to be
considered legitimate. In some times and cultures, given a particular
economic system and circumstances, that may require a prohibition on any
interest. In other times and cultures (such as ours), it may require
only a maximum limit on the amount of interest that may be charged in
certain consumer transactions. In either circumstance, the underlying
Natural Law principles remain the same. Otherwise, I think, the legal /
ethical code ultimately rests only on a foundation of power relationships
-- as Mao said, "morality begins at the point of a gun."

On 3/15/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for pulling these things together. However, I'm not sure that
all these matters have been thought through. For example, I read
recently that human beings are still evolving, specifically in the genes
that affect intelligence. So there is apparently greater understanding.
This means change over time in understanding--what have been called
memes.
>
> As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some
matters remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But
the prohibition on interest had to give way. Also, there was no attempt
10,000 years or so ago to protect large mammals or the environment, but
ecology is currently one of the moral imperatives that have been
discussed on this list and at ASA meetings.
> Dave
>
>
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:20:33 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
>
> Let me gather together some of the ideas expressed in the posts on
this topic thus far. Please excuse that I cannot keep up with the
conversation always in 'real time' since I'm in time zone GMT +3. I found
the comments interesting and helpful.
>
> "All aspects of the physical universe are evolving. Irreversibility
is the name of the game! … Humans are both physical and nonphysical.
The physical aspect does evolve; however, you are right that the
nonphysical aspect does not evolve." – A. Moorad
>
> Conclusion #1 – non-physical aspects/things do not evolve.
>
> "[E]volution explains only one small slice of reality. I'd also add
the moral law" … "angels and seraphs" – David Opderbeck
>
> Conclusion #2 – what evolution explains is (only) a small slice of
reality. Moral law, angels and seraphs don't evolve.
>
Received on Fri Mar 17 14:53:18 2006