The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

ChristianTrader · #9 (**permalink**) 03-26-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

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

Right. I made that point as well.

Your bolded portion does not say that NL is not based on human nature, only that one must have the "correct view of human nature on which natural law can be based." To have a "correct view" of human nature, "on which natural law can be based," one must have a correct view of God in order to have that "correct view of human nature on which natural law is based."

I never denied that distinction, I just made the point that he said NL is based on human nature. I never denied that we must look to God to find out what that is. In fact, I invoked the imago dei.

You savvy?

My disagreement came here:

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.

You stated that Anderson stated that NL is based on human nature, but.

I did/do not see the reason for your writing in that way unless you thought he did not make that same distinction and that you were in fact helping him along.

CT