1 of 1- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline - Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Eliseo Vivas's Critique of Natural Law.
In my professional researches I came across an attack on natural law by the American conservative writer Eliseo Vivas entitled Animadversions upn the Doctrine of Natural Law. It is available here.
Although I have heard it invoked by some later conservative figures, it doesn't look very insightful to me. It seems to not grapple with Thomistic or Scholastic thought in any serious way, and to simply assume contrary metaphysical and ethical principles, such as a complete distinction between moral and natural laws. I may be wrong though.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Eliseo Vivas's Critique of Natural Law.
To put it in a somewhat less gentile way the first eight pages are spent pouring out a maudlin Post-Victorean 'ohh we are older now and can no longer belive the beatiful false stories' rhetoric. This person has told us his 'world-view', not a very interesting one and little else.
To be shown in error the arguments would have had to be met with the following counter-arguments:
(1) that the hypothesis of natural law does not depend on a Providential conception of God;
Answer: It doesn’t. As Feser and others have said Natural Law accounts dependents on an Aristotelean account of essences and Final Causes; if a Naturalist is willing to allow something akin to these into their ontology they can endorse NL just as much as the theist. As a matter of fact we have Naturalist NL theorists e.g. Foot or Feser before his return to theism.
(BTW the fact that it could technically apply without the existence of God and the transcendence of the soul is one of my reasons for rejecting NL)
(2) That there can be no genuine morality unless it be authoritarian;
Answer: See answer 1. Ironically if we could argue this point then it would rule out NL
(3) that there is no essential difference between the laws of the physical world and the moral law or laws;
Answer: The NL theorist admits a difference between Natural and Moral evil so the challenge is badly framed. Other than that see all other answers.
(4) That the developments of modern science since the days of Copernicus or Galileo do not call for a reconstruction of the medieval view of the world and man.
Answer: We need not dignify this question with a response
- Etzelnik
- Member
Offline
- From: New Jersey
- Registered: 6/28/2015
- Posts: 337
Re: Eliseo Vivas's Critique of Natural Law.
Alexander wrote:
(BTW the fact that it could technically apply without the existence of God and the transcendence of the soul is one of my reasons for rejecting NL)
Why must we reject a theory of morality which could apply without knowing the existence of God and the transcendence of the soul? I'm not necessarily defending NL here, but I find it curious that one would rule out a moral theory on the basis that it allows a naturalist to be justified in their moral convictions.
I had this same question after hearing a speech by William Lane Craig, in which he was insisting that any non theistic system cannot possibly have a true basis for morality.
Why can't Aristotle's PM, or the Ultimate Platonic form ground within itself that which is proper and good?
Noli turbare circulos meos.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Eliseo Vivas's Critique of Natural Law.
(BTW the fact that it could technically apply without the existence of God and the transcendence of the soul is one of my reasons for rejecting NL)
Why must we reject a theory of morality which could apply without knowing the existence of God and the transcendence of the soul? I'm not necessarily defending NL here, but I find it curious that one would rule out a moral theory on the basis that it allows a naturalist to be justified in their moral convictions.
Okay, it's very late here so I'll try to give a quick answer and save anything more indepth for tomorrow.
Because the fundamental drive of human life can never be satisfied in any finite way. No matter what finite good we have we can always say 'No, more!' - if there is no infinite good then the Will must substitute an arbitrary phantasm in its place which can swallow up all finite goods. Since nothing can equal the infinite good Goodness and Truth cease to be convertible – why prefer the ‘true’ instead of the ‘lie’. So though I don’t think his account of the morality he rejects is very accurate I accept a broadly Nietzschean account of the death of God leading to the death of Truth.
(As one might guess I've some disagreement with those Christian accounts of eschatology which make our capacity for participation in the Divine Essence an additional rather than ‘natural’ facet of our nature.)
Last edited by DanielCC (7/07/2015 5:47 pm)