[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 3 KB, 209x214, smile.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2827900 No.2827900[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>arguments based on natural law

>> No.2827909

Can you give me an example of such an argument so that I can laugh with you at how flawed it is?

>> No.2827913

>>2827909
HA HA HA HA

>> No.2827914

>>2827913
Oh. Is the smile not one of amusement? I admit I had difficulty being sure.

Anyway, give me an example of an argument based on natural law and tell me how I should feel about it.

>> No.2827927

>>2827914
how....

unnatural

>> No.2827930

Not OP.

Natural law is the position that some things are inherently good and bad. Common examples of appeals to natural law are, for example, fundamental human rights, while appeals to positive (or some subdivision such as constitutional or common law) might include a defense or condemnation of an action based on its accordance or discordance with, say, the first amendment to the constitution, the New York State Penal Code, or common practice.

In argument, appealing to natural law is roughly the equivalent of saying "just because", while appealing to positive law is roughly equivalent to saying "because I said so."

>> No.2827946

anything by john locke

>> No.2827951

>>2827930
But that's only appealing to nature in an "is = ought" way which is indeed fallacious. Referring to nature in an argument of science, on the other hand, is necessary, as it keeps a person grounded in reality.

>> No.2827976

>>2827951
Natural law is not the same as the laws of nature. It's a term used in ethics and political philosophy. It pretty much the definition of defining ought in terms of is. It is precisely as much bullshit as all ethical or, arguably, just all appeals.

>> No.2827985

>>2827976
I thought that was referred to "appeal to nature," not "natural law." But I could be wrong.

>> No.2829125

>>2827951
No. Well, only in the sense that we should be free to live our lives as nature intends or forces us to. So it isn't:
>Everybody poops
>therefore it is moral to poop
It's more:
>Everybody poops
>therefore nobody should be denied their right to poop

If you look at Human Rights, those are your typical natural laws.