• James Riley
    317


    To the extent a hinge proposition is presupposition that cannot itself be rationally established, defended, or challenged, that would be the value-free law. Natural law is justification, rationale, and reason behind the law. We used to actually argue that in court, especially in equity. Maybe that has become passé, I don't know.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    Meh. I was thinking more of hinge proposition as a foundation. If you are using "natural law" to mean "justification" then you are misusing the term "law". One can always ask of a law - and here I will explicitly include natural law - "is it morally good?" One ought not replace morality with circularity.
  • James Riley
    317
    I was thinking more of hinge proposition as a foundation.Banno

    I'm no expert on hinge propositions, but when I looked it up, they were said to be not rationally established, defended or challenged. That would be value-free law, not Natural Law. Natural Law is the opposite, as I addressed before in describing feelings, justice, values, justification and reason, etc.

    Nor am I misusing the term "law." As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all. Law falls in line behind it; either that or it lacks reason. Who is going to say we have no reason for our law? Apparently the positivist. LOL! Good luck with that. If a law has no reason (no justification) then it can't be just and then there is no reason to obey it (other than the threat of violence). And who is going to say might makes right? Apparently the positivist. LOL!

    One can and always should ask of a law "is it morally good." Doing so is not replacing morality with circularity. It's begging for reason, for foundation, for justification, for an answer as to why a law should be obeyed.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    ...they were said to be not rationally established, defended or challenged. That would be value-free law,James Riley

    Why? After all, values do not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged... A value looks like a prime candidate for a hinge proposition to me: Why do you like vanilla ice cream? No reason - I just do. My value is not rationally established, defended or challenged; but it is not value-free.

    It remains problematic to say that natural law justifies positive law, and also that "Natural law is justification, rationale, and reason behind the law"; all you are saying is that positive law is justified by the justification, rationale, and reason behind the law - that law is justified by what justifies it.

    That ain't helpful
  • James Riley
    317
    After all, values do not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged..Banno

    It's a non-issue for law, if law is value-free. But I'm not sure where you get the idea that a value does not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged. It most certainly does if it's going to be persuasive. As already explained, that feeling that we find valuable cannot justifiably be reduced to a value until there is a reason for it. My liking ice cream is not a value, and even if we were to stretch a "like" to becoming a value, my "value" of ice cream, unlike the law, is not seeking to persuade anyone else to like it.

    That ain't helpfulBanno

    It ain't helpful because you're allegation of circularity is based on your failure to address the linear chronology. It's laid out in my previous post and I'll not keep repeating here. Suffice to say, Natural Law does not so much justify law, as law rides in on the coat tails of Natural Law.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    You're still trying to justify law with more law.
  • James Riley
    317
    You're still trying to justify law with more law.Banno

    No, I'm not.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it.
  • James Riley
    317
    Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it.Banno

    That would be the expected (demanded?) response to a value-free law. I, however, as a champion of Natural Law, have done the courtesy of justifying my response in a linear explanation in another post, demonstrating that I am not "trying to justify law with more law."
  • Banno
    11.6k
    ...in another post,James Riley

    A link might help, then. To what do you refer?
  • James Riley
    317
    A link might help, then. To what do you refer?Banno

    I'm new here, and apparently people don't talk to or respond to anyone not tagged. So I apologize. I just assumed you had been reading this thread. Maybe you are just doing drive-by sniping with no background in the discussion. That would explain the failure to understand. So, by way of justification, I will just refer you to the OP and then page six of this thread.

    I'm going to go watch a movie and cede the carcass of this beaten horse.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    Oh, I've been reading the thread, wiht interest. But that's hundreds of posts - why make me guess to which you re referring? The one about walking up the hill? The one about your dad?

    Enjoy the movie.
  • James Riley
    317


    Ninth post up from bottom of page six, et seq.
  • Hanover
    6.1k
    While I think Natural Law is at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer, I think that the more our judgments and decisions, including those regarding law, are guided by informed reasoning, the better they will be.Ciceronianus the White

    Laws that are mala prohibita prohibit conduct unrelated to morality. The zoning law dictating the color scheme of the homes is an example. Laws that are mala in se prohibit conduct on the basis of morality. Rape and murder would be the example. Mala in se are the laws we're interested in here.

    If we accept moral realism, then the rules governing the creation of a proper mala in se law are immutable. We may not be correct in our conclusions of what is moral, but under moral realism, there is a Good and a law requiring rape is a logically contradictory mala in se law. It is a law demanding moral conduct yet it is immoral.

    The rules governing a mala in se law are the rules of natural law. That is, if moral rules exist objectively, then laws dictating morality (mala in se laws) must adhere to these rules. The natural law cannot be violated under this scheme.

    Is the debate then only over what you insist the word "law" means? It does appear you wish to prescribe a definition to the term "law" and require it only mean a specific codified written rule by a human law making body. That's simply not what the posters here take to be the definition of "law" within the the context of natural law though.
  • Banno
    11.6k
    Ah, cheers.

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523588

    oh well, my thought concerning hinge propositions was an attempt to understand your position in my own terms. I suppose if you don't agree with it, then I have not understood your position.
  • James Riley
    317
    I suppose if you don't agree with it, then I have not understood your position.Banno

    I don't know if I agree with it or not. I did not know what a "hinge proposition" was so I looked it up and it seemed to describe simple law and not Natural Law and so I commented on that.
  • James Riley
    317
    mala prohibitaHanover

    Mala in seHanover

    :up:

    I don't speak Latin but that does bring back memories of school. I thought it was malum but again, I don't speak Latin and it's been a million years.
  • Athena
    1.3k
    What the Greeks understood by 'reason' is not what the term came to mean for us through modern philosophy. Anaxagoras said 'nous' (mind or intellect) orders the cosmos. Reason is a Latin term, from ratio, used to translate the Greek dianoia, discursive thinking. It differs from noesis, a kind of direct apprehension or seeing with the mind.

    What the logos meant for Heraclitus is controversial. When he says: " ... all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos ...", he might mean that the Logos is the guiding force or he could simply mean that what he is about to tell us is the way things are, the truth. Preceding this he begins: "Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it – not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time …".

    It should noted that the Greek philosophers, in imitation of the Greek poets, placed the authority of what they said not with themselves but with God or the gods.

    In the Phaedo Socrates says that he had been drawn to Anaxagoras' claim that Nous orders all things, but was disappointed to learn that he gave only physical explanations and did not say why things should be the way they are, that is, why it is best that they be this way. Socrates was left on his own to discover what is
    best, that is, his "second sailing", his recourse to speech.

    It is not divine reason made manifest in speech, but rather, human speech attempting to know what is best.
    Fooloso4

    I grew up with the notion that songs and stories and inventions are in the universe waiting to be manifest by someone. Such as an idea that its time has come. This goes with Jung's notion of realizing concepts through experience. Humans living in comfortable climates where it is easy to grown food have a diety that provides for them. Human beings who live in harsh climates have a sky god who kills people in snowstorms and does not take care of them, so they live in spite of a god's effort to kill them.

    For me what Heraclitus said means that Logos is the guiding force. How I understand logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe does not begin with a reasoner. It begins with universal laws. It is as it is because it can not be otherwise. The reason things stay on the earth is gravity. The reason we hear is both the receptor in our ear paired with brain function and sound vibrations. When we look for the reason of things we get philosophy and then science. We move away from the belief in supernatural beings.

    Etymology. Jinn is an Arabic collective noun deriving from the Semitic root JNN (Arabic: جَنّ / جُنّ ‎, jann), whose primary meaning is 'to hide' or 'to adapt'.Some authors interpret the word to mean, literally, 'beings that are concealed from the senses'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn — Wikipedia
    This notion could come from the deserts where mirages are apt to happen. However, other cultures independently came with a notion of a trickster and tell about it in folktales. Jinn and tricksters violate the law as we know it.
  • Athena
    1.3k
    Your sentence calls to mind something I wrote a few years ago, out to Utah and Arizona:James Riley

    I don't know your course of study but by nature, you are a geologist or related science such as anthropology. I believe we are in the "resurrection" only it is manifested by normal humans and science, not supernaturally. Geologists and anthropologists and related sciences are bringing the past into the present and I think it is our job to learn all we can and rethink our understanding of reality.

    I like
    Banno
    11.6k
    Natural law as legal hinge propositions...
    Banno

    When we blend that with the "resurrection" we get something very exciting, and as far know we are the only life form that can do this and the technology of computers and the internet is essential to this expansion of consciousness.
  • Fooloso4
    1.2k
    We move away from the belief in supernatural beings.Athena

    I have no belief in the supernatural but I do recognize the power of myth and the imagination.
  • Athena
    1.3k
    I have no belief in the supernatural but I do recognize the power of myth and the imagination.Fooloso4

    Absolutely! My thoughts on that are being explored in a different thread. In this thread, we base our laws and policies on what we imagine to be true. Is there is a difference between what we imagine is true and what we can know is true?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment