Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil
Thanks for that. (FWIW, the "strengths" have also been the greatest weaknesses. Many ethicists have critiqued NL precisely at the point of its universality and absoluteness.)
At the end he says NL is based on human nature. In one sense this is correct in that God wouldn't have given laws against sodomy had he made us without rectums.
But, in another sense, an NL guy can say that the laws are based on God since God instantiated this type of world, e.g. a world where humans have rectums. Also, God grounds all exiestence, even human existence. And, the imago dei would come into play here as well for the Christain. Furthermore, God's nature grounds some moral laws in the way ours do (cf. the sodomy example), i.e., in worshiping him, honoring him, etc.
Also, we can bring in an *alethic* grounding such that God's nature is the truth-maker for morality.
We can also employ epistemological arguemnts showing the need for revelation. God reveals what is best for man, society, etc. So, a NL position need not be a totally epistemologically autonomous position
| Actually at the end he does not just say that NL is based on human nature. He grounds one's belief in human nature in one's belief in the eternal aka God.
One will have a hard time agreeing on what human nature is if one disagrees about who God is.
CT | CT,
On page 630 he says, "Natural law theory asserts that law is based on human nature. Therefore, there is only one natural law. The emphasis in natural law theorizing must be on obtaining a correct view of human nature on which a natural law can be based."
And that's a fairly standard NL point. Right in the mainstream. I brought out his other questifcations and made some distinctions he did not draw.
But, he followed in line with other NL apologists in claiming that (at least some) law is based on human nature (cf. the sodomy point, etc).
I agree with the rest of your points, as that was one of my points. But, he did say that natural law was "based on human nature." And by saying that he's saying what Aquinas said before him. |
p. 630
Natural law theory asserts that the law is based on human
nature, and there is only one human nature. Therefore, there is only
one natural law. The emphasis in natural law theorizing must be on
obtaining a correct view of human nature on which a natural law
can be based.
Because one’s view of human nature depends on one’s
view of the origin of human nature, a correct view of human nature
will first require having a correct view of the eternal.
The thing that makes this paper interesting is how he is able to bring Aquinas and Aristotle onto the same page, by pointing out that the differences are differences due to differing beliefs in God.
The paper is pointless without that distinction.
CT