User talk:NL

Tag! You're it! Now you have to feed Lord Jerboa. -- PsyGremlin  12:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there natural justice?
No there isn't. Or at least, there's no evidence for it. To address a few points raised on your user page:

"We are asked to stop at certain corners, drive at certain speeds etc. There is nothing just or unjust about any one of these things until the law is made."

Yes, because these laws are concerned with preserving public safety and community peace, rather than devotion to some high-toned concept of "justice". Couldn't the same also be said of the laws against stealing and murder? Law is pragmatic, not moralistic.

"Yet even if there were no law made concerning stealing or murder, to kill a man or to take what belonged to him and not to you, would be naturally unjust."

If we accept that stealing is "naturally unjust", that would seem to mean that the concept of personal property is a "natural" one. Man-made laws defining property have to be pretty tight, because of the inevitable disputes that arise over it, but how can we tell what naturally belongs to a person?

"And so a law that prohibits murder is a law the justice of which is not conventional but natural"

If the laws against murder are natural, then what is the natural sentence? How can we tell?

"Suppose for a moment that there were no natural justice. In that case you could not speak of laws as just or unjust. And all you could say would be that men are just or unjust according as they do or do not obey laws. The law itself, the existing law of the community would be the only measure of justice, in which case what was just in one community might be unjust in another."

I do suppose, and for more than a moment, that there is no such thing as naturally justice. There are plenty of ways of assessing how just a law is, like comparing it other laws, in the same country or elsewhere, weighing up the harm and good it seems to do (like a utilitarian), judging it by popular opinions, and by your own opinion. These are all subjective measures, but that's the nature of the beast: justice is subjective.

Unless, as you maintain, justice isn't subjective but exists objectively and naturally. But then the onus is on you to substantiate this. If justice exists naturally, how can we measure it? How can we test empiracally whether something is just or unjust? What is the source of natural justice?

If you can't back up your assertion with something substantial, then all that's left is your belief in a natural law. But why should that hold any more weight than the beliefs of many others who hold opinions about what is just or unjust but who do not attribute these beliefs and opinions with the status of being objective universal laws? 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weaseloid, everything on my user page is merely an introduction. Strictly speaking, I didn't even argue for Natural Law, I simply introduced it without giving any arguments or evidence, but the way how you immediately wanted to "bash" me certainly tells much about your open-mindedness.


 * "Your reasoning is puerile" - I like that, thank you AD.


 * "There are plenty of ways of assessing how just a law is, like comparing it other laws". And what should that prove? Even the whole world may have the right-hand driving system, but there still isn't anything unjust about the British law that requires its people to drive on the left hand. Duh.


 * "weighing up the harm and good it seems to do (like a utilitarian)" Utilitarianism is a useless theory, but you will ignore those arguments anyway. But how exactly can you write utilitarianism into the laws? Murder may increase the aggregate pleasure in one case and reduce it in another case, there is no "law".


 * "judging it by popular opinions, and by your own opinion.". If there is no natural justice, then justice consists in obeying the laws and if you don't like these laws, you already are unjust.


 * But the concept of "popular opinion" makes things really interesting. Anything goes, if most people support it - for example teaching creationism in American schools if 51 % of american people agree with that. It means that teachers are about to lie to students all the time, but there really isn't anything bad about lying.


 * Etc, etc... --NL (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're not arguing for natural law, then why would you think I'm trying to "bash" you when I've said nothing about you personally? I did not call your reasoning puerile, and don't see why you're confronting me what somebody else has said to you or about you on another page.  Based on your utilitarian debate & natural law comments on your user page, I took it that you were interested in debating moral philosophy.  So I've tried to address some of the questions raised on your user page, & in return you haven't addressed any of my questions, just reiterated that people's opinions are useless on moral issues and the only real benchmarks are the laws we're bound by and some hypothetical universal law.  Again, what is natural law?  How can we observe it, test it, adhere to it?   22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)