Does anyone know what natural law means?
- Thread starter Ghozt
- Start date
Natural law is an ethical theory that claims that humans are born with a certain moral compass that guides behaviors. These inherited rules essentially distinguish the "rights" and "wrongs" in life. Under natural law, everyone is afforded the same rights, such as the right to live and the right to happiness. Google
Eltitoguay
Well-known member
I think it would not be exactly like that, since the predation of another living being for survival is a true, not just a "law", but an evolutionary imposition of Nature (or the universe, if you prefer), to living beings not autotrophs, like us.
It is an imposition of Nature, with which we were born and evolved.
In fact, it is declarated as a proof that if a creator God really exists or existed in "our universe", either his "moral concepts" are different from ours (why, not being all-powerful, did he not give all living beings autotrophy, instead of condemning ourselves to kill other living beings [many, created with a nervous system that "allows" them to feel all the pain that this can mean] to survive)... Or "it" is not really all-powerful (or it is "all-powerfull" in "its native universe, only") and cannot escape the laws of the cosmos (even if that God had created them), and if "it" created our universe by creating a physical Singularity ("Big Bang type") in "its" universe, he could only create the initial Singularity and (according to what we know or believe we know about the functioning of our universe) therefore that God remained in "his universe" without being able to influence the development of that universe created by him, but not even to "observe" its development.
This same idea/argument about the impossibility of God to "save" the original Singularity of our universe was presented by S. Hawking and other theoretical physicists before the scientific commission of the Vatican that aims to "adjust/match" their beliefs and doctrine, with science; without the Vatican scientists having managed to "overcome" this "obstacle" (which, although we start from the idea of an Almighty Being in its universe, makes it impossible to influence another created by/through a Singularity, even if that God himself were the conscious creator/origin, of that Singularity and the "new universe" that is created from it).
All the previous objections could be overcome by substituting "sentient being" for being human. This would be the approach on the part of the jurists of Rome, and of Christianity, and Creeperpark's definition.
But I think that for other Roman jurists, natural law designated those instincts and emotions common to man and "lower animals"; In that case, the definition of your message would sound more correct like this: "A right is an action that does not cause "gratuitous" harm to any other sentient being; "gratuitous" being understood as the harm caused to the other being by an action that is not intended to satisfy an instinct, or "extra" or unnecessary and aware harm , caused to satisfy an instic."...
Last edited:
