Re: Things that don't evolve

*Why does "Natural Law" always look like the "moral code" of the proponent?*

That's a misunderstanding of natural law theory. Check out C.S. Lewis' The
Abolition of Man for an interesting comparison of basic moral ideas that
appear across many times and cultures (he calls this the "Tao").

On 3/17/06, D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
>
> 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 15:05:31 2006