Do you believe in natural law or are you a positivist?

[Anonymous No.11799480]

Just finished reading The Concept of Law by HLA Hart and it's pretty convincing desu.

[Anonymous No.11799493]

>natural law
>objective morality
No such things exist.
If you disagree, I'd like you to posit an example of an objective moral stance, that everyone agrees on, and that isn't dependent on time/place/culture.

[Anonymous No.11799535]

>>11799480
>hart
what is this, undergrad philosophy of law? what's next on your syllabus? read dworkin

[Anonymous No.11799549]

>>11799493
That murder is wrong.

By murder, I don't mean capital punishment of a criminal or defending your country in war, but straight up killing somebody you don't like.

[Anonymous No.11799557]

>>11799549
What is genocide? Or do you think the Armenians being genocided was not murder?

[Anonymous No.11799568]

>>11799549
Moreover, just because some culture may have tolerated some particular immoral behavior more than others, does not mean that the people in that culture did not recognize the inherent wrongness of the behavior.

[Anonymous No.11799584]

>>11799549
>defending yourself in a war
You do realise that for every time someone is defending, someone has to attack?
Just look how much European art glorified warfare - even in early XX century.

Also
>what were human sacrifices in pre-Colombian America?
>what are honor killings in Islam?

[Anonymous No.11799587]

>>11799557
People who commit an evil typically rationalize the behavior as a good. Genociders probably rationalize it as defense of their own peoples.
They may call it a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.
Fallen humans sometimes get it wrong, but natural law exists and can be known.

[Anonymous No.11799593]

the death drive is law

[Anonymous No.11799598]

all thought and reason and rhyme is capital, we can only draw around it in chalk with rational thinking but we cannot see him

[Anonymous No.11799606]

>>11799587
>>11799568
>>11799549
>people have been killing eachother by the millions, for all of written history, for all kinds of reasons
>b-but they probably knew it was wrong, so my objective morality is real

[Anonymous No.11799609]

>>11799493
>that everyone agrees on, and that isn't dependent on time/place/culture.
Surely if it's objective it will still be moral even if some people disagree. Otherwise it's not objective? Just because some people think the earth is flat doesn't mean it is.

[Anonymous No.11799619]

>>11799609
>Just because some people think the earth is flat doesn't mean it is.
There's a multitude of ways to definitively prove Earth's shape.
There is no such proof in morality (ethics). All you're doing is shouting
>I am right and everyone who disagrees is objectively wrong
which is such a childish thing to do.

[Anonymous No.11800330]

>>11799619
>There is no such proof in morality (ethics)
Why would I need proof? It's objective, it doesn't need to be proven in some petty empirical way.
Unless you're a retarded nominalist

[Anonymous No.11800849]

>>11799609
Only if morality is universal, which it isn't. Morality starts with human biases, while the earth being spheroid is not a consequence of our varying biological states.

The best you can do is to say 'this particular moral approach objectively achieves x and y to greater/lesser degree than another'. But then you're back at human bias again, since not everyone will value the consequences in the same way. We just have to work with our value overlap basically, and/or collectively submit to an authority.

[Anonymous No.11801332]

>>11800849
This

>>11800330
>my opinions are objectively true because I say so, no proof needed
Like a little baby

[Anonymous No.11801482]

>>11799480
Just finished reading Hart, after reading Aquinas' "Treatise on Law." I intuitively agree with Aquinas, I can find substantial holes in John Austin's and Oliver Wendell Holmes' reasoning (holes which Hart himself acknowledged), but Hart seems hard to shake. Apparently, Fuller has a pretty good response to Hart — so if something doesn't sit right with you, hold out for Fuller. I myself will be reading Fuller's response later tonight.

[Anonymous No.11801489]

>>11799535
lel — dworkin is later on in the syllabus, ya doof.

[Anonymous No.11801523]

>>11799493
To be fair, though, by this reasoning science, math, and logic are also not real. Of course, if logic isn't real, then there's no reason for me to listen to or believe your arguments.

[Anonymous No.11801531]

>>11801523
>objective morality is not real
>by this reasoning, science and math are also not real
Explain.

[Anonymous No.11801587]

>>11801531
>science
>logic
>objective morality
No such things exist.
If you disagree, I'd like you to posit an example of an objective moral stance, that everyone agrees on, and that isn't dependent on time/place/culture

There are no moral, logical, scientific, etc. principles that don't depend on those things, particularly given that there are relativists, postmodernists, nihilists, and underground men who will deny no matter what. That poster's whole argument is that if anybody anywhere ever disagrees, then the thing doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.11801704]

>>11801587
Math, logic (as a subset of math) and widely-understood science are all studies of FACTUALITY.
They are used to determine whether a hypothesis is TRUE or FALSE, using respective aproppriate tools. If someone disagrees with a statement, he can use those tools to conclusively disprove it.
There is a whole branch of philosophy about what exactly is "science". It's too much to explain in a 4chan post.

Morality, on the other hand, is a study of VALUE STATEMENTS - whether something is GOOD or BAD. However both "good" and "bad" depend on your values and goals. If even one person disagrees with your value statement, it's not objective anymore and becomes just your personal opinion. There are no external means to definitvely prove your opinion is "better" or "more objective" than theirs.

[Anonymous No.11801765]

>>11801704
Keep shouting my man. People disagree with all that, so by the other poster's criteria, it can't be objective.

If you think no one argues about scientific results, or what they mean, or that at least some of the results you're sure a "true" won't be widely known as "false" in the scientific community in the future, then you're dreaming. And that's not even mentioning that within the philosophy of science there are people who would argue that none of it is "factual" the way you mean it.

But yeah, morals are just opinions that don't ever exist and can't be tested by anyone ever and also can't possibly be more nuanced than whatever you have in mind. Likewise science is basically done, none of what we have will substantially change, and we're always improving it in the only possible way.

[Anonymous No.11803095]

>>11801489
Dworkin was a charlatan.

[Anonymous No.11803125]

>>11801332
>true things are only true if we have proof for them
Like how atoms and bacteria suddenly sprang into existence not so long ago. You can't call other people childish when you're the edgy redditor who needs 'science' to prove it's wrong to kick an old lady in the shins

[Anonymous No.11803285]

>this thread
>nominalists begging nominalism
>materialists begging materialism
>scientists begging scientism
What is it that makes a man a stemtard?

[Anonymous No.11803583]

Can someone please post the syllabus? I'm afraid I lost my copy of it!

[Anonymous No.11804425]

>>11799480
Stop posting pictures of me please.

[Anonymous No.11804431]

>>11803125
>my opinions are objectively correct, just like bacteria objectively exist
How "enlightened" can a person get?

[Anonymous No.11804670]

>>11804431
>morality is a matter of opinion
How euphoric...

[Anonymous No.11804688]

>>11804670
A libertarian will say "taxation is theft (immoral)"
A communist will say "labor is theft (immoral)"

Which one of them is objectively wrong?

[Anonymous No.11804707]

>>11804688
>implying they can't both be wrong

[Anonymous No.11804713]

>>11804707
>waaah waaah everyone is objectively wrong except me

[Anonymous No.11804718]

>>11804713
You dumb enough to think one of them is right?

[Anonymous No.11804730]

>>11804718
I disagree with both, so in my opinion both are wrong - but in the end it's just my opinion, since there is no objective morality.

[Anonymous No.11804747]

>>11804730
>since there is no objective morality.
Au contraire, morality can *only* be objective. Otherwise it's not morality, it's opinions.

[Anonymous No.11804783]

>>11804747
morality is simply opinions (value statements) about what is wrong and what is valuable.
Opinions which change from place to place, from time to time, from person to person.

[Anonymous No.11804928]

>>11804783
No, you are describing opinions (and in the long run power) not morality. Morality is like truth, if it's a matter of opinion it ceases to be truth

[Anonymous No.11804950]

>>11804928
There is nothing to suggest that morality (as you described it) even exists.

[Anonymous No.11804959]

Reminder that you idiots are all just talking past each other when you say something is right or moral.

[Anonymous No.11806546]

>>11799480
Congrats on reading a book

[Anonymous No.11807748]

>>11799493
Go put your hand on a hot stove.
BenStiller.jpg.