Natural law methodology
- Thread starter jwright82
- Start date
- Status
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
What is the connection you are making between natural law and inductive/deductive reasoning?
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
To some extent. However, the conscience of man is corrupted, and we have a real gift for reasoning our way to justifying sin and getting our consciences to accept the reasoning, or to neglect duties and to get conscience to be quiet about it. The reasoning is good to prove there is an universal law written on man's heart by God, but to get down to our exact duties we need special revelation.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Depends on what you mean by "nature." I used to think it meant looking at a squirrel and deducing that murder is wrong, and I ridiculed NL theorists that way. Rather, it is the structure of man and the world and "what we can't not know."
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
I agree with what you said but there are exceptions. Some Muslims have a real problem with who to kill and who not to kill. In America we kill about 640,000 babies each year, and lately even live ones. I don't know if there are good statistics but quite a few older people are euthanized as well in our developed country. You can train the conscience to accept almost anything if you really work on it.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Natural Law theory was dealt a severe blow by Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution through "natural selection," which was updated by Herbert Spencer to its more severe, but logically consistent term "the survival-of-the-fittest." Then
Friedrich Nietzsche's takeaway of survival of the fittest led not only to Germany's Eugenics, or Superman Theory, but to the Holocaust itself, and, if I'm not overstating the matter, to the death of over 50 million people in the last and bloodiest century. Such is the darkness that man, made in the image of God can sink to without the aid of the inscripturated Word.
Friedrich Nietzsche's takeaway of survival of the fittest led not only to Germany's Eugenics, or Superman Theory, but to the Holocaust itself, and, if I'm not overstating the matter, to the death of over 50 million people in the last and bloodiest century. Such is the darkness that man, made in the image of God can sink to without the aid of the inscripturated Word.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
"“Does not nature itself teach you"
~St Paul
~St Paul
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Good point. I almost mentioned something about that in my post above because I do believe in natural law rightly interpreted. But I do not believe God has made it an adequate guide for a Godly civil law code. Inadequate because of the Fall and not because of some defect in the law itself.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The problem is that the Natural Law theory that Gary North and Co. are attacking is not the historic Christian view on natural law. Thomas Aquinas is a theocrat, for example. Natural law is simply the human reflection on divine law, which is inevitable since God didn't give us an exhaustive code for every human contingency.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Eternal Law *is* the mind of God. Natural law is a human reflection on the eternal law, which includes first principles, remote implications, proximate implications. To answer the OP, in this sense it is deductive.
A couple of thoughts.
First, whenever I see a natural law discussion, I immediately reach for my Blackstone:
"Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."
Blackstone's Commentaries. Book I, Part I, Section 2.
So often the language of "natural law" gets confused with "law of nature" and it is obvious that sometimes people don't catch the difference.
The second thought relates to the nature of inductive reasoning. We know it has practical use: even well trained dogs can identify a pattern and make predictions based on a limited sample of observations. (I'm thinking of cow-dogs I used to train, who, after only a few sessions, could generally predict herd behavior in all sorts of circumstances).
But why does it work? By nature we are "wired" to interact with God's creation in such a way. And we can deduce from the revealed "law of nature" (i.e. Scripture) that God created an orderly world that, in general, runs in predictable patterns.
So inductive conclusions based on observation are (and must be) verifiable by a deduction from the "law of nature." Otherwise, they are suspect and often damaging.
(I'm not saying, e.g., we must verify the structure of a bridge by Scripture, but that we ought to acknowledge that our trust in repeated tests of structures is consistent with our knowledge, from Scripture, that God creates a consistent universe).
First, whenever I see a natural law discussion, I immediately reach for my Blackstone:
"Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together."
Blackstone's Commentaries. Book I, Part I, Section 2.
So often the language of "natural law" gets confused with "law of nature" and it is obvious that sometimes people don't catch the difference.
The second thought relates to the nature of inductive reasoning. We know it has practical use: even well trained dogs can identify a pattern and make predictions based on a limited sample of observations. (I'm thinking of cow-dogs I used to train, who, after only a few sessions, could generally predict herd behavior in all sorts of circumstances).
But why does it work? By nature we are "wired" to interact with God's creation in such a way. And we can deduce from the revealed "law of nature" (i.e. Scripture) that God created an orderly world that, in general, runs in predictable patterns.
So inductive conclusions based on observation are (and must be) verifiable by a deduction from the "law of nature." Otherwise, they are suspect and often damaging.
(I'm not saying, e.g., we must verify the structure of a bridge by Scripture, but that we ought to acknowledge that our trust in repeated tests of structures is consistent with our knowledge, from Scripture, that God creates a consistent universe).
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
As soon as we put some flesh on the bones and formulate some arguments, we will soon see that all appeals to inductive inference to ground moral absolutes will reduce to arbitrariness and inconsistency - a utilitarian standard of opinion.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Every reconstructionist I have read defined natural law as Newtonian metaphysics, and then said natural law has been refuted by Darwinian thought. But this is a rather odd claim. Consider:
1) No major historic figure defined natural law as Newtonian metaphysics. I think Gary North confused "law of nature" for natural law. Big category mistake.
2) Even if Natural Law = Newtonian physics, it's not clear how Darwin refuted it. Darwin didn't refute Newton. Newton is science. Darwin is not.
1) No major historic figure defined natural law as Newtonian metaphysics. I think Gary North confused "law of nature" for natural law. Big category mistake.
2) Even if Natural Law = Newtonian physics, it's not clear how Darwin refuted it. Darwin didn't refute Newton. Newton is science. Darwin is not.
Well, yeah!?
Who actually thinks this? I've not read a lot of recons, but this seems bizarre.
Newtonian physics is a nice, tight, and integrated summary of observable and repeatable events. Darwin speculates on history. No point of overlap.
It's like trying to refute the law of gravity by saying someone made a cake yesterday.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It is in most of Gary North's non-economics books. Bahnsen never really attacked natural law as it is classically understood. Rushdoony rejected it by saying "Nature is fallen," but that doesn't tell me anything.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes I admit the inherent trouble in inductive reasoning, I have read Hume's critique. But I have read other very powerful critiques of Hume, that don't deny his charges but sidestep them. Plus as far as I know Hume never doubted induction just the claim that it could be airtight deductive arguments. But by way of "custom" we had every right to believe things we know by way of induction.
Also I should have said but I didn't, sorry, any argument for any moral from induction must
A. Be viewed as inferior to deduction
B. Always tested against and controlled by scripture
But methodologically might be a good way developing arguments from natural law. David Vandrunen does this implicitly in his book on Bioethics. He just doesn't spell out a method, which is what I'm exploring here.
Also I should have said but I didn't, sorry, any argument for any moral from induction must
A. Be viewed as inferior to deduction
B. Always tested against and controlled by scripture
But methodologically might be a good way developing arguments from natural law. David Vandrunen does this implicitly in his book on Bioethics. He just doesn't spell out a method, which is what I'm exploring here.
James, I've been pondering your topic off and on. I don't know if this is helpful, but I offer a simple hypothetical:
We look at cattle, say, in their "natural" state and find, behold!, there are male and female versions. We watch them long enough and we see that there is a purpose behind maleness and femaleness. Their complementary forms seem clearly to conform to a function. Or maybe the function follows the form--we can't really say from simple observation.
Nevertheless, if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.
Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"
We can always argue that we might see that in fallen or thwarted nature, but that is obviously not the design. And the counter argument brings up some other observation of bent processes--ad nauseum. And our ethical rule is chipped away bit by bit by the eroding definition of "nature."
I don't know if such barnyard philosophy helps define the issue. I think about these things in simple terms and tend to see weakness in the process right from the start.
We look at cattle, say, in their "natural" state and find, behold!, there are male and female versions. We watch them long enough and we see that there is a purpose behind maleness and femaleness. Their complementary forms seem clearly to conform to a function. Or maybe the function follows the form--we can't really say from simple observation.
Nevertheless, if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.
Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"
We can always argue that we might see that in fallen or thwarted nature, but that is obviously not the design. And the counter argument brings up some other observation of bent processes--ad nauseum. And our ethical rule is chipped away bit by bit by the eroding definition of "nature."
I don't know if such barnyard philosophy helps define the issue. I think about these things in simple terms and tend to see weakness in the process right from the start.
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Yes my big question started when I pretty much agreed to the view of Dr. Van Drunen on natural law, albeit with some hesitations. One thing I noticed is a lack of methodology for making arguments from natural law, problems like the one shared by VictorBravo. I got his book on Bioethics hoping to see at least some good arguments from natural law and be able to deduce a method but sadly no. It's a decent book but sadly not what I was looking for. So I pondered it too and thought that an inductive method might be best suited to natural law arguments.That was my thought process.
Without a method to do it in practice it doesn't matter how it is in theory.
Without a method to do it in practice it doesn't matter how it is in theory.
Last edited:
jwright82
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
In what way? Could you explain? I'm very interested In your "deduction" point. As far as method, how would it work?
But doesn’t this entire argument depend upon whether or not one can derive an “ought” from an “is”? That seems to be an unargued, hidden premise in your example. How is that assumption not an “agenda”?
The whole "ought" from "is" is the very essence of arguing from natural law. It is not deductive, but inductive.
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
What you said true to was: “As soon as we put some flesh on the bones and formulate some arguments, we will soon see that all appeals to inductive inference to ground moral absolutes will reduce to arbitrariness and inconsistency - a utilitarian standard of opinion.“
Accordingly, what you’re saying in context of my post is that if one can be persuaded of moral absolutes by an argument that denies moral absolutes yet affirms subjectivity, “that will do.” Obviously you don’t mean that so I’ve misunderstood...
Maybe you wouldn’t mind offering an example? That’s what I meant by putting some flesh on the bones.
Last edited:
User20004000
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hi Victor,
I agree with Taylor. There seems to be something fishy about deriving ought from is.
I just don’t see how this response to Taylor can salvage the project: The whole "ought" from "is" is the very essence of arguing from natural law. It is not deductive, but inductive.
I’ll make just a few passing comments on some other things you wrote.
The argument you put forth does not take the form of an inductive argument, (which are weak or strong). Actually, it takes the form of a deductive argument, which are valid, invalid, sound or unsound. Yours appears to be an invalid deductive argument:
p1. Natural law supports male-female pairing
p2. Therefore, anything contrary to such natural pairing is contrary to nature
p3. Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong
It’s simply invalid to move from statistical normality to moral normality. In other words, the premises you require seem to be absent. Or as Taylor intimated, there would appear to be an “unargued, hidden premise in your example.” In a word, it would appear you’ve begged the question. (Your conclusion goes beyond the scope of the premises.)
Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"
But can’t we say the same thing about birth defect? We might observe that in the totality of newborn nursery corrals we find something contrary to nature, four fingers on a hand for instance.
Let’s apply your exact form of argument to see where it leads us.
p1. Natural law supports babies with five fingers
p2. Therefore, anything contrary to a baby with five fingers is contrary to nature
p3. Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong
I’m not sure what more needs to be said.
I’m afraid that the apologetic approach being advocated leads to arbitrariness and inconsistency. It’s arbitrary to say that is implies ought, and the inconsistency is shown by the birth defect analogue. In other words, it’s inconsistent because we’d never argue that it is immoral to have four fingers. Accordingly, it’s arbitrary to selectively draw only some moral conclusions from nature but not others.
This is not to deny God’s natural law or its usefulness. I’m merely pointing out some shortcomings of misapplying God’s natural law. It was never intended to operate apart from special revelation, even in the prelapsarian state when sin wasn’t obscuring conscience. How much more the case after the fall?
Lastly, I don’t think that pointing out the improper maneuver of moving from statistical-normality to moral-normality makes one an “agenda-driven observer.”
I agree with Taylor. There seems to be something fishy about deriving ought from is.
I just don’t see how this response to Taylor can salvage the project: The whole "ought" from "is" is the very essence of arguing from natural law. It is not deductive, but inductive.
I’ll make just a few passing comments on some other things you wrote.
“Nevertheless, if we remain simple and agenda-free in our thinking, we believe we can safely say that nature (natural law) supports male and female pairing. We make an ethical conclusion that anything else is contrary to nature and, being contrary to nature, it is wrong.”
The argument you put forth does not take the form of an inductive argument, (which are weak or strong). Actually, it takes the form of a deductive argument, which are valid, invalid, sound or unsound. Yours appears to be an invalid deductive argument:
p1. Natural law supports male-female pairing
p2. Therefore, anything contrary to such natural pairing is contrary to nature
p3. Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong
It’s simply invalid to move from statistical normality to moral normality. In other words, the premises you require seem to be absent. Or as Taylor intimated, there would appear to be an “unargued, hidden premise in your example.” In a word, it would appear you’ve begged the question. (Your conclusion goes beyond the scope of the premises.)
Now introduce an agenda-driven observer who says, "wait a minute, I was watching bulls in a corral the other day and they were all trying to breed each other. See, nature allows for homosexuality!"
We can always argue that we might see that in fallen or thwarted nature, but that is obviously not the design.
But can’t we say the same thing about birth defect? We might observe that in the totality of newborn nursery corrals we find something contrary to nature, four fingers on a hand for instance.
Let’s apply your exact form of argument to see where it leads us.
p1. Natural law supports babies with five fingers
p2. Therefore, anything contrary to a baby with five fingers is contrary to nature
p3. Therefore, anything contrary to nature is morally wrong
I’m not sure what more needs to be said.
I’m afraid that the apologetic approach being advocated leads to arbitrariness and inconsistency. It’s arbitrary to say that is implies ought, and the inconsistency is shown by the birth defect analogue. In other words, it’s inconsistent because we’d never argue that it is immoral to have four fingers. Accordingly, it’s arbitrary to selectively draw only some moral conclusions from nature but not others.
This is not to deny God’s natural law or its usefulness. I’m merely pointing out some shortcomings of misapplying God’s natural law. It was never intended to operate apart from special revelation, even in the prelapsarian state when sin wasn’t obscuring conscience. How much more the case after the fall?
Lastly, I don’t think that pointing out the improper maneuver of moving from statistical-normality to moral-normality makes one an “agenda-driven observer.”
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Because of God's simplicity. Anything in God is God.
When Eternal Law is applied to human situations, it is called natural law. Of course, not all applications are equally pure.
And I don't quite do the whole "deduction" and "method" thing in such a strict manner. If it happens, it happens.
- Status
