I didnt read the thread but I know Festus Iyayi wrote a novel called Violence.

^^^ Economic Violence. The sort still going on in Nigeria today. It was a great book.

DeepSight:



It wasn't carefully thought out.

Duuuhhhhh!

What else is new ?

DeepSight:






It is not, else there should be no such thing in existence as a court or a prison at all.

Courts and prisons were never universal. The criminal justice system are are among the traditions that evolved differently in different cultures over many millennia.

DeepSight:
^^^ To dwell very briefly again on the point about Murder. Merely killing another human being is not the definition of murder. With murder, there would have to be what is called the mens rea and the actus reus.

If a person kills in self defense, or in a case of reasonable provocation (where there has not been time for the passion to cool), or in a state of insanity, none of these things qualify as murder. There are very fine lines of thought that lead to these conclusions in criminal jurisprudence, and yes, criminal jurisprudence has a most direct bearing on the issue of moral relativity and the issue of moral objectivity or subjectivity.

I would advise you to acquaint yourself with these lines of thought if you are not already. I presume you are.
However it befuddles me that if you are then you should have long understood where I am coming from.

Word salad a la carte.
Still searching for the beef in this plate.

DeepSight:


You rascal. Abami Eda.



Okay. I understand that point of view and to be honest it's fair enough.
What I would like you to understand are mala in se and mala prohibita.

Your friend the lunatic Wiegraf says that no such thing as mala in se exists.
What are your thoughts on the distinction?

Are you familiar with the jurisprudence of natural law and positive law?



Nothing is absolute or fixed and it's somewhat irritating that you insinuate this into my arguments.
However there is natural law as distinct from positive law.

And the objective morality I refer to proceeds from natural law.

Most of criminal law is derived from natural law.
The distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors also relies on the distinction between natural and positive law.

If you look carefully at the OP in the thread that first brought this issue up (The evolution of morality, by Mr. Troll) - you would find that the presuppositions contained therein would render the existence of moral values or any ethics whatsoever as we know them, dead on arrival. It would be proper, positively moral and of good ethics to do anything whatsoever to advance one's personal interests regardless if such would include murder, theft, r.ape - you just name it.

Might would be right.

There is a huge body of learning that advises us that this is not the case: that might is not right: and that there exist such things as proper ethics and honour. I will elaborate on this perhaps when I have more time late in the evening.



That's a given.



People who speak devoid futility and entanglement rarely get misconstrued.

All these arguments you are making using the terms natural law and positive assumes that law is a static thing , rather than an aggregation of societal values over time, and amendable with the changing values of society.

thehomer:


What? DeepSight agrees with me on two points? The Singularity is truly near.

End time things.

DeepSight:



Okay. I understand that point of view and to be honest it's fair enough.
What I would like you to understand are mala in se and mala prohibita.

Your friend the lunatic Wiegraf says that no such thing as mala in se exists.
What are your thoughts on the distinction?

Are you familiar with the jurisprudence of natural law and positive law?




And the objective morality I refer to proceeds from natural law.

Most of criminal law is derived from natural law.
The distinctions between felonies and misdemeanors also relies on the distinction between natural and positive law.

I just started learning about Natural Law recently thanks to Ubenedictus. I haven't gotten into it too deeply yet but as yet I view it with a bit of suspicion. Perhaps you could drop your 2kobo in this thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/2902194/challenge-roman-catholic-doctrine

DeepSight:


Might would be right.

Isn't it?!

DeepSight:


It is not, else there should be no such thing in existence as a court or a prison at all.

Courts and prisons are not universal.

I can't take this seriously.

Nor this.

Well can you tell me how you determine 'objective' Morality other than making an agglomeration of lots of different subjective opinions.

PastorAIO:


I just started learning about Natural Law recently thanks to Ubenedictus. I haven't gotten into it too deeply yet but as yet I view it with a bit of suspicion. Perhaps you could drop your 2kobo in this thread here:

https://www.nairaland.com/2902194/challenge-roman-catholic-doctrine

I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

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

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

^^^ Please note the Edits. Added 3 short paragraphs.

PastorAIO:


Courts and prisons are not universal.

This is irrelevant. Their equivalents are universal in different forms. Systems for adjudicating matters and meting out punishment basically. These are universal. Why have you become a surface thinker? What happened to you?

Well can you tell me how you determine 'objective' Morality other than making an agglomeration of lots of different subjective opinions.

See my post above. I will still revert with more in the evening.

PastorAIO:


Isn't it?!

If you think that might is right, I am probably wasting my time discussing with you. You had best discuss this matter with persons who share that view, such as Idi Amin, Abacha, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor, Mobutu Seseseko and other such persons who are clearly of the same ignoble mindset.

DeepSight:
^^^ To dwell very briefly again on the point about Murder. Merely killing another human being is not the definition of murder. With murder, there would have to be what is called the mens rea and the actus reus.

If a person kills in self defense, or in a case of reasonable provocation (where there has not been time for the passion to cool), or in a state of insanity, none of these things qualify as murder. There are very fine lines of thought that lead to these conclusions in criminal jurisprudence, and yes, criminal jurisprudence has a most direct bearing on the issue of moral relativity and the issue of moral objectivity or subjectivity.

These are the particular subtleties of common law and English jurisprudence. They are not universal worldwide nor throughout history. The doctrine of mens rea and diminished capacity experienced gradual acceptance in England culminating to MacNaghten's case.

Under Roman law, paters familia allows the head of the household to kill whomever he wishes to in his household. Eventually this right diminished into a milder form before it disappeared entirely.

Crimes of passions have undergone dramatic changes amongst different jurisdictions. This link explains better https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

PastorAIO and I are less considered about the particular contents of morality since the generality amongst them is that they are normative, rather we are concerned about the causes of changes we see in moralities. The Napoleonic code changed laws, why? Common law never stands still but organically keeps growing, why?!

It is impossible to deny the diversity of moralities across time and space; and once that is accepted, it is difficult to still claim morality is objective as a fact and universal.

DeepSight:


I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

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

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

Natural law meant different things to serious philosophers. From Cicero to Aquinas to Nietzsche to Kant to Herbert Spencer to Rousseau: all had Natural law invoked with diverse meanings. In fact the Athenians had this to say about their own natural law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

Positivists believed any law or moral was valid as long as it was normative and sanctions were effective to enforce it. These were the minimum requirement for laws and morals.

Besides even if Reason leads us to Natural law, that doesn't say anything about the basic premise from which to begin from nor the necessary assumptions to be made. It is therefore no surprise that all the naturalists point to different directions like dials on a clock.

My most preferred explanation is the table of values.

Kay17:


It is impossible to deny the diversity of moralities across time and space; and once that is accepted, it is difficult to still claim morality is objective as a fact and universal.

As explained in mine above, it is Positive Law that changes and positive laws have little to nothing to do with morals as we speak of them.
The underlying principle of Natural law remains the same different descriptions or wordings regardless.

Kay17:


Natural law meant different things to serious philosophers. From Cicero to Aquinas to Nietzsche to Kant to Herbert Spencer to Rousseau: all had Natural law invoked with diverse meanings. In fact the Athenians had this to say about their own natural law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue

Positivists believed any law or moral was valid as long as it was normative and sanctions were effective to enforce it. These were the minimum requirement for laws and morals.

I have had a look at the link in yours above. I am at a loss as to how it affects the discussion here. What on earth are you on about? ? ? ?

DeepSight:


As explained in mine above, it is Positive Law that changes and positive laws have little to nothing to do with morals as we speak of them.
The underlying principle of Natural law remains the same different descriptions or wordings regardless.

We have the Athenians saying that under natural law:

The Strong Do What They Can, And The Weak Suffer What They Must

Which sums up 'might is right' as against Rousseau and Aquinas ideas of natural law. The difference at least in this case, is too substantial to ignore.

Isn't it possible for people to elevate their cultural and personal values into a transcendental plane and label it natural law?!

Kay17:


We have the Athenians saying that under natural law:



Which sums up 'might is right' as against Rousseau and Aquinas ideas of natural law. The difference at least in this case, is too substantial to ignore.

That was a statement of what happens in conflict and not quite a statement of articulation of natural as pertains to human morals. You would not pick out what goes on in situations of war as a benchmark for identifying morality as per human morality either.

abeg, deepsight, you think you've made sense? oya, for starters, explain to me how homosexuality is, according to you, objectively immoral. thanks

plaetton:


End time things.

Abi o.

DeepSight:


I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.

There is only one thing I would like to take from the comments of Ubenidictus, and that is the statement that natural law is written in the hearts of men. However I take this statement with a bit of caution (not because I doubt it) but because I know that you hysterical lot may heckle at it and pick puerile flaws with it. So no matter.

What is more cardinal for me to say - (and Plaetton please note this as per your posts on laws changing according to cultural values) - is that only Positive Laws change according to cultural values. Natural Law never changes - It remains what it is - adamantine and permanent just as they proceed from the natural and ineluctable nature of the Creating Mind itself - which creating mind (or Expanding mind is what we call God) - The same ultimate element that Plaetton refers to simply as energy whilst denying its consciousness - Natural Law is what it is through all times and ages.

In this, please leave the Abrahamic God aside - it is fraught with too many contradictions. I am speaking logic and basic human principle here. And what I am speaking has been enunciated thoroughly by great minds in philosophy throughout the ages. I will try to post some historical commentary in this regard later.

This is actually a professional area of learning - just as medicine, architecture, or any of the physical, biological or chemical sciences. It is not mere talk. It is criminal jurisprudence - a cardinal course for any lawyer to take whilst at university. With Criminal Jurisprudence, one has to understand the philosophy of the law - that is to say - the cardinal and primary underpinning notions that form the law.

And in this regard I have said to you that there is natural law and positive law.

Natural Law: - I relate to Mala in Se.

The definition:

:Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal.[1]

In Western culture, the philosophical conception of natural law first appears among ancient Greek thinkers.[2] Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct. Common law is not based on inherent rights, but is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally recognized by virtue of already having judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law is often contrasted with the human-made laws (positive law) of a given political community, society, or state.[4] In legal theory, the interpretation of a human-made law requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says, but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself. Some jurists and scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale),[5] while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.[1]

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

Positive Law: - I relate Positive Law to Mala Prohibita.

:Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited) is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Conduct that is so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it is illegal under English common law is usually regarded as malum in se. An offense that is malum prohibitum may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_prohibitum

Positive laws (Latin: ius positum) are human-made laws that oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit.

The concept of positive law is distinct from "natural law", which comprises inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature or reason."[1] Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) and at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as "law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society."[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

Gentlemen, you should read thoroughly the fundamental underpinnings of these concepts. And please calmly come to understand exactly how they apply directly to the conversation on moral objectivity and moral subjectivity.

What is inherent is inherent in the human nature. That is what is referred to as natural. Therefrom proceeds that which is natural law and thus that which is objective and universal and timeless. That is what I argue for. However that which human dictates prescribe as per different cultures and different circumstances as societal regulations are that which proceed as Positive Law. These are not objective and these vary. These have little or nothing to do with morals. These will only form societal norms such as not parking your car in the wrong place. These have nothing to do with timeless and Universal morals which I argue for. Positive Laws have little or no bearing on morals.

It is this fundamental and perhaps tricky distinction that appears to have confused our conversation on this issue so much. What you gentlemen are referring to as cultural values that vary and evolve over time from place to place and from time to time - are not morals at all. They are simply norms and regulations of the ilk of Positive Laws - something like acquiring a Passport or Visa before travelling to a foreign country or having a work permit, or voting with an accreditation etc would all fall in that rank.

In concluding for now, please note at the very least that these are not things that Deep Sight has propounded. These are age long thoughts and conclusions by historical persons devoted to the subject which have formed our general thinking of today.

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

I'm not sure of how many people you think other than those who talk about some God think that whatever they personally think is right is therefore right. Especially when they know that they sometimes change their minds.

The fact that they are age old thoughts and conclusions doesn't mean they're right or not inconsistent. It is very rare to actually find an action that isn't right on some point of view. This is why the basis on which that point of view is based has to be assessed. e.g The idea that killing people is wrong can actually depend on several points such as who is doing the killing, why is the person being killed and many other variables.

DeepSight:


That was a statement of what happens in conflict and not quite a statement of articulation of natural as pertains to human morals. You would not pick out what goes on in situations of war as a benchmark for identifying morality as per human morality either.

That was why I presented the link for a proper context. The discussion/debate focused on morality and how people must act. Besides isn't conflict the ideal test for moral will?

DeepSight:


I have had a look at the thread and there is not too much there to invite the necessary commentary. I think it's better I make my few and humble comments here.
…….



….

…




Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right. This is the madness that you gentlemen are displaying when you engage in this f.oolish talk about morality being subjective.

Relativity is a different subject altogether as it relates to the circumstance more than the person.

All this one na unnecessary grammar.


For me personally, 'Natural Law' has got a stink to it. I haven't looked at it too closely but from what I've heard so far I haven't been encouraged to investigate cos I fear it might just be a load of jumping around in a circle.

For me personally I see LAW as The necessary relationship between two events. The two events may be An Initial Event and A consequence.
A law therefore is what says that an initial event MUST be followed by its consequence. (Laws do not only bind causality but also things across space. So if it's early morning in UK we can say for sure that it is evening in China).

There are two kinds of laws. What I call my natural law (not your natural law, but mine) and then Human laws.

A natural law would be, like for example in physics, the law of gravity. With this law you know that If a ball is suspended over the earth then the Ball must fall to the earth at a fixed acceleration rate.

This law of gravity will take effect whether or not there is anybody present or whether anybody agrees the ball should drop or not.

Then there are human laws. For example the Law that says that if a man steals another man's property then that man should be punished.
The Act of theft and the subsequent punishment are bound by a human law. The difference between human law and MY natural law is that human laws MUST be enforced by humans.

If people don't catch the thief and enforce punishment on him then there is nothing that can be done and the law is moot, if not nonexistent.

Now this problem of enforcement is a very important difference between the two. MY Natural Law gets enforced by Nature itself. Human laws need human agency to enforce them. Where Human agency is too weak or unable to enforce the law the law is to all intents and purposes non existent.



Now I want to get a little spiritual, so the atheists should bear with me.

Since Natural Laws are ingrained and integral to the Universe they do not need human agency for enforcement. This would include any Natural law that is 'written on the hearts'.

I believe that there is a Natural Character stamped indelibly on each human. An innate character. And there are properties and characteristics of this character. Further I believe that if a person should live his life at odds with this innate character then there will be consequences based on Natural law .

Take for example a man who is a paragon of society , he is successful, he is rich, he is admired. Yet one day he falls into a deep depression. That is the effect of living at odds with his innate character. Prior to the depression certain things might have begun to happen to him. Certain misfortunes that were inexplicable.

These negative events are the consequences of his living at odds with his innate character. They are not enforced by any human agency they are ineluctable consequences of the way he's lived.


Anything that you are calling Natural Law that requires Human agency to enforce… my brother, it is not any Natural law nkankan. Na man made law. finito. The rest na tori.

DeepSight:

Only a mad person would conclude that anything that he personally thinks is right is therefore right.

Irony na wonderful thing.

DeepSight:

This is irrelevant. Their equivalents are universal in different forms. Systems for adjudicating matters and meting out punishment basically. These are universal. Why have you become a surface thinker? What happened to you?

All human agency. And very different from culture to culture. Even amongst friends when we were kids we had our ways of settling disputes. Most of the time we would rack, and the winner takes all. Europe had something similar with the Duel system of settling disputes.

DeepSight:

See my post above. I will still revert with more in the evening.

I didn't see anything in the post above to answer my question o.

DeepSight:


If you think that might is right, I am probably wasting my time discussing with you. You had best discuss this matter with persons who share that view, such as Idi Amin, Abacha, Hitler, Stalin, Charles Taylor, Mobutu Seseseko and other such persons who are clearly of the same ignoble mindset.

ee ee oo!! Na wa for dis ya indignation.

Where did Idi Amin or Abacha or Mobutu claim that Might is Right? I'm not aware of that. Those of them that had philosophy articulated something totally different.

Kay17:

We have the Athenians saying that under natural law:

The Strong Do What They Can, And The Weak Suffer What They Must


Which sums up 'might is right' as against Rousseau and Aquinas ideas of natural law. The difference at least in this case, is too substantial to ignore.

How sweet! I'll have to look into that later too. I think the best articulation of what I'm trying to say to date has to be Kuyuk Khan.

If not by the command of Heaven, how can anyone slay or conquer out of his own strength?
Kuyuk Khan to the Pope.

Kay17:


That was why I presented the link for a proper context. The discussion/debate focused on morality and how people must act. Besides isn't conflict the ideal test for moral will?

Abi o! The test of the pudding is in the eating. How can anyone know the Will of God unless they test it. If you believe that you are right then you ought to be able to engage in the battle in the knowledge that Truth will prevail.

https://www.nairaland.com/2279805/christianity-pagan-great-clash


A Letter from Kuyuk Khan to Pope Innocent IV

By the power of the Eternal Heaven, we are the all-embracing Khan of all the Great Nations. It is our command:

This is a decree, sent to the great Pope that he may know and pay heed.

After holding counsel with the monarchs under your suzerainty, you have sent us an offer of subordination which we have accepted from the hands of your envoy.

If you should act up to your word, then you, the great Pope, should come in person with the monarchs to pay us homage and we should thereupon instruct you concerning the commands of the Yasak.

Furthermore, you have said it would be well for us to become Christians. You write to me in person about this matter, and have addressed to me a request. This, your request, we cannot understand.

Furthermore, you have written me these words: "You have attacked all the territories of the Magyars and other Christians, at which I am astonished. Tell me, what was their crime?" These, your words, we likewise cannot understand. Chinggis Khan and Ogatai Khakan revealed the commands of Heaven. But those whom you name would not believe the commands of Heaven. Those of whom you speak showed themselves highly presumptuous and slew our envoys. Therefore, in accordance with the commands of the Eternal Heaven, the inhabitants of the aforesaid countries have been slain and annihilated. If not by the command of Heaven, how can anyone slay or conquer out of his own strength?

And when you say: "I am a Christian. I pray to God. I arraign and despise others," how do you know who is pleasing to God and to whom He allots His grace? How can you know it, that you speak such words?

Thanks to the power of the Eternal Heaven, all lands have been given to us from sunrise to sunset. How could anyone act other than in accordance with the commands of Heaven? Now your own upright heart must tell you: "We will become subject to you, and will place our powers at your disposal." You in person, at the head of the monarchs, all of you, without exception, must come to tender us service and pay us homage; then only will we recognize your submission. But if you do not obey the commands of Heaven, and run counter to our orders, we shall know that you are our foe.

That is what we have to tell you. If you fail to act in accordance therewith, how can we forsee what will happen to you? Heaven alone knows.

^^^ Well said, and elegantly put, AIO - i cannot dispute it further. I understand your point of view - However I still disagree with your point of view.
Stay blessed @ All.

DeepSight:

^^^ Well said, and elegantly put, AIO - i cannot dispute it further. I understand your point of view - However I still disagree with your point of view.
Stay blessed @ All.

This is very unsporting of you to claim to disagree yet fail to explain why you disagree.

Not to mention your promises to 'revert to more in the evening' regarding countering my earlier post.