I've thought about it for a long time now

"

[Removed by Support]

What is your point? This isn't about religion.

"

[Removed by Support]

[FEDORA TIPPING INTENSIFIES]

Natural law is a law beyond the physical realm and human-made laws. Something which holds universally true, regardless. That is the common understanding of it.

Let is quickly dip into the word nature. What is nature? It's literal meaning comes from "to be born", "birth" or "Creation", although no one probably knows its full past. Creation is positive, creation is life and creation is growth. Nature represents life and growth. What are natural laws then? They are laws that govern life and growth. That is why an example of a rock planet doesn't touch on natural laws, and is largely irrelevant. The laws of life are still there, but there would be no life for it to apply to, although if we wanted to could probably argue that rocks are a part of the circle of life, too.

Now, with the mindset that natural laws govern life and growth, things suddenly become clearer. Now we can understand why something that violates life will not live in the long run, because it does not obey the laws of life.

For life to prosper, unneeded destruction needs to be reduced. Life is order, and if there is more destruction than order in the long run, then life will cease to exist. Look at humans, only those minds formed in ways where they are repulsed from needless destructive action will survive the best in the long run, and so due to natural laws of life, all species must conserve life more than they destroy it in order to survive the ages.

That manifests through cause and effect, the many combinations of genes that battled throughout ages were just that, cause and effect, some caused negative effect on themselves which eventually made them less likely to survive than those who didn't. They were followed by karma, really, karma is no spiritual concept at heart, it's plain logic and understanding. Everything is cause and effect by the way, without it there would not be life, there would not be nature. In fact nature is our greatest testament to cause and effect.

"

Ultimately what's "best" for nature (from a moral perspective) could be very different from what's best for us.

Is one of those statements of the moment that aren't universally true, but can appear true if you don't think too far ahead, clouded by the word "best". Eventually as we destroy nature, and so do not conserve life more than we reduce it, we will only lose the nature that supports us, and will destroy ourselves equally. So we are in an equilibrium with nature. We can't be too many people on earth, as that would destroy nature, and we need nature to live. So what is good for nature is good for us in the long run, as well.

Any species that does not conserve life around them will eventually die out due to the same. Everyone depends on symbiosis. Physical laws are only observations as well, we describe what we see.

Now i moved away from the general understanding of natural law. Natural law as understood by most, particularly relates to human society, rules, morals etc, and the question is whether any of those are derived from natural law, from the laws that govern life and growth.

I am very tempted to say morals are subjective, and that therefore could not be universally true. However, at the same time, most morals are derived from an understanding of how to respect life and growth. So you could say that the ideal of morals is directly linked to Natural laws, you might even argue that they are the same. I care not, all i wanted to say was that most morals are natural(of life and growth) and that they help you survive. Only some morals stem from natural law, many are simple tradition or other.

"

Crackmonster wrote:

Natural law is a law beyond the physical realm and human-made laws. Something which holds universally true, regardless. That is the common understanding of it.

Which is a great way of saying absolutely nothing meaningful at all.

"

Let is quickly dip into the word nature. What is nature? It's literal meaning comes from "to be born", "birth" or "Creation", although no one probably knows its full past. Creation is positive, creation is life and creation is growth. Nature represents life and growth. What are natural laws then? They are laws that govern life and growth. That is why an example of a rock planet doesn't touch on natural laws, and is largely irrelevant. The laws of life are still there, but there would be no life for it to apply to, although if we wanted to could probably argue that rocks are a part of the circle of life, too.

Let's not re-define words here please. Nature literally refers to the material world, everything in existence. Not just life. Otherwise we would simply call it "the law of life" or something to that extent.

"Creation is positive, creation is life and creation is growth"

Says who?

"

Now, with the mindset that natural laws govern life and growth, things suddenly become clearer. Now we can understand why something that violates life will not live in the long run, because it does not obey the laws of life.

You haven't actually demonstrated that such a natural law exists, you merely asserted it.

"

For life to prosper, unneeded destruction needs to be reduced.

Which is a conditional truth and not a universal truth.

"If we want life to prosper then X logically follows." This is conditional, not universal.

"

Life is order, and if there is more destruction than order in the long run, then life will cease to exist. Look at humans, only those minds formed in ways where they are repulsed from needless destructive action will survive the best in the long run

Which isn't even true at all. Our society is built in a way to reward exploitation and greed. We historically exploited the people and ressources of Africa, so to hell with this naive notion that only those who promote peace and order will succeed.

"

and so due to natural laws of life, all species must conserve life more than they destroy it in order to survive the ages.

Which is again a conditional truth not a universal truth. "If we want to survive"... go talk to some antinatalists and see what they have to say about the future of our species.

"

That manifests through cause and effect, the many combinations of genes that battled throughout ages were just that, cause and effect, some caused negative effect on themselves which eventually made them less likely to survive than those who didn't. They were followed by karma, really, karma is no spiritual concept at heart, it's plain logic and understanding.

Karma, really? Is that why our society rewards those who are best at exploiting others for their personal gains? Altruism sounds great in principle, but pure altruism gets you absolutely nowhere in life.

"

Everything is cause and effect by the way, without it there would not be life, there would not be nature. In fact nature is our greatest testament to cause and effect.

What does causality have to do with this? Nobody is doubting causality, for we have physical evidence of that. What is very much in doubt is the existence of a natural law that you even admit is meta-physical and cannot be demonstrated. You either believe in it or you don't. I don't.

"

Is one of those statements of the moment that aren't universally true, but can appear true if you don't think too far ahead, clouded by the word "best". Eventually as we destroy nature, and so do not conserve life more than we reduce it, we will only lose the nature that supports us, and will destroy ourselves equally. So we are in an equilibrium with nature. We can't be too many people on earth, as that would destroy nature, and we need nature to live. So what is good for nature is good for us in the long run, as well.

Again.. conditionally, not universally.

"

Yes homosexuality is unnatural. That doesn't make it immoral or wrong. You aren't hurting others with it, only yourself (no children). It would be wrong from the perspective of life's purpose = have children, but you can't say you are doing wrong to anyone if it's right for you since we find our own purpose in life.

What exactly do you even mean when you say "homosexuality is unnatural"? Aren't homosexuals natural people? How exactly did you come to the conclusion that our purpose is to have children and that this is somehow naturally true (and therefore a natural law)? Some of us have children, some don't. There doesn't seem to be any universal truth in that at all.

This demonstrates perfectly why I reject natural law as it is understood by most. You say "procreation is natural, non-procreation is unnatural". But in reality we can observe both, people that procreate and people that do not. So how exactly do you distinguish between natural behaviour and unnatural behaviour without blatantly begging the question?

With all this said and done in the end... We all have to poop. So for all of this amazing in depth analysis of the human psyche there is a fundamental natural law... Eventually we all have to poop...

"

solwitch wrote:

With all this said and done in the end... We all have to poop. So for all of this amazing in depth analysis of the human psyche there is a fundamental natural law... Eventually we all have to poop...

I skimmed most of the previous commentary.

Yes we all poop. We all (most) propagate.

A natural law to me means that when the sperm hits the egg, poof, baby happens.

Morality is entirely based on the culture your raised in. Some cultures may deem that cannibalism is appropriate. Some say dog is a great meal. Some think that helping your fellow man is awesome.

Others take the corporate approach and deem everything/one just a piece of trash for them to shit on.

"

HermitDragon wrote:

A natural law to me means that when the sperm hits the egg, poof, baby happens.

Which is again, not what "natural law" actually refers to. Natural law doesn't refer to any observable facts about reality.

Here, wikipedia has the answer for you:

"Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

So can we please stop redefining terms and start discussing natural law as it is understood by modern-day philosophers?

One guy goes off on a tangent and tells me that natural law refers purely to "life" and now you come in and tell me that natural law is descriptive...

The meaning of nature is pretty damn close to life and growth, it's not something i just made up the roots of the words and the meaning of those words. There is nothing changed here. Why is growth positive? You kidding me? Growth is plus, it's adding rather than subtracting where destruction subtracts from what is, growth adds.

"

Which is a conditional truth and not a universal truth.

"If we want life to prosper then X logically follows." This is conditional, not universal.

No. If life in the grand scope of time is to survive, there must not be more destruction than creation. Universially it is true. What is conditional is that at any given point in time the rates of creation/destruction need not be equal. It isn't hard to understand at all.

"

You haven't actually demonstrated that such a natural law exists, you merely asserted it.

Thanks, i'm glad you picked up on my humility, i deliberately indicated that if we assumed the previous was right, then the following would be true, leaving space to attack the assumptions. But you're not thinking clearly, someone goes against you so you see it as negative, revealing your own state of mind.

"

Which isn't even true at all. Our society is built in a way to reward exploitation and greed. We historically exploited the people and ressources of Africa, so to hell with this naive notion that only those who promote peace and order will succeed.

Actually, it is so. One of humanities greatest strengths is our ability to work together and help each other. Again you got things backwards, you look at the moment and think wow it's possible to in the short run be rewarded by greed and taking from others, but if that became the norm then we would survive less well. In essence, we humans are a species that are very good at putting the group before our individual selves, and help each other.

Do you understand basic statistics? It means those who support each other survive better over time. It doesn't mean that if you support people you will always survive better than anyone who doesn't, it just means that on average people who do that survive better. Believe it or not, it's even genetically inherited, we release chemicals that make us happy when doing so, and as such it's part of classic evolution.

"

Karma, really? Is that why our society rewards those who are best at exploiting others for their personal gains? Altruism sounds great in principle, but pure altruism gets you absolutely nowhere in life.

Yes karma. You really think that those who spend their lives exploiting people are full of joy, and loved by those around them for who they are?

Karma doesn't mean you cannot take anything from another being, which in fact we all have to do to survive. Karma deals with actions of excessive good and bad and their consequences.

Karma is more about balance than being extreme, so it's funny you should bring extremes up in your ignorance, showing just how little you understand what you read.

Karma you could say is a study of natural law, and karma is based on causality, so really, natural law is based on causality, even if you can't comprehend it. All universal behavioral patterns are dictated by causality.

"

What exactly do you even mean when you say "homosexuality is unnatural"? Aren't homosexuals natural people? How exactly did you come to the conclusion that our purpose is to have children and that this is somehow naturally true (and therefore a natural law)? Some of us have children, some don't. There doesn't seem to be any universal truth in that at all.

This demonstrates perfectly why I reject natural law as it is understood by most. You say "procreation is natural, non-procreation is unnatural". But in reality we can observe both, people that procreate and people that do not. So how exactly do you distinguish between natural behaviour and unnatural behaviour without blatantly begging the question?

Unnatural in the way that is it un-"good, life, growth". It doesn't lead to growth. Just read what i write dammit, it's laid out simple and logically for you to address directly. Being homosexual doesnt promote life, it ends life with you, it leads to death, and not growth, so i is unnatural. They were given birth to naturally, but they themselves did not act naturally in that regard, they did not promote life.

Also, if you read you see i write that we find purpose in life outside of giving birth, but from nature's perspective our purpose is to carry on life. How did i come to that conclusion? Because that is what being natural is, it's continueing the circle of life, of growth.

Here is some not so ancient but based on very ancient knowledge text about Natural Law

http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/kybalion.pdf

Also i gave those links in ither topic but again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o&list=WL&index=8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqBuUD0f2HU&list=UUTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ

Regards!

PS. I think that is what I should show as for start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEV5AFFcZ-s