“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment .” . .” — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Republic, The Laws, 59 – 47 B.C.
“Which, fortuitously, just happens to align itself with what [u][b]I[/u][/b] believe is ‘right reason in agreement with nature’. Which also aligns itself perfectly with the God that [u][b]I[/u][/b] just happen to believe in.”
You know, the way this all works “in reality” out in the world when individuals come into conflict over value judgments.
Thus if there is a law that says aborting a human fetus is a criminal offense [a capital crime] some will embrace that as “right reason in agreement with nature”, and if there is a law saying that all women have the right to choose abortion, others will embrace that as “right reason in agreement with nature”.
In other words, the way it has always been going back to the invention of moral and legal philosophy itself.
I would agree that such a description refers to “Natural Law”. “True Law” is a dubious term. Truth is an artificial ontological construct and can vary from society to society, although never be contrary to one another.
And in more exacting terms, “Natural Law” is the impossible. Counting to infinity is a natural impossibility, not merely against your parent’s wishes. Forming an actual “square-circle” is likewise. Being in the same place where you are not, likewise.
Societal Laws, or “The Laws of Man” are either agreements or forms of coercion. Such laws can be broken, whereas natural laws cannot ever be broken, by anything at any time. Thus there is no punishment for breaking a natural law, since it cannot ever happen in the first place. As he states, “it is a sin to TRY to break a natural law”. One can try, but will necessarily fail. A “sin” merely means “a failure of intent”.
I tend to agree with iambiguous that this quote, taken as presented, will most likely be used to justify whatever by whomever. I also suspect, though, that taken in context of a broader writing, it probably goes into a lot more detail about just what the products of right reason are and how we ought to know them.
It is easy to discern natural law from societal laws. One can be broken, the other cannot, ever, even for an instant. Thus arguments can be settled through demonstration of the efforts (but of course that won’t stop online magogs from lying).
Cicero was of the opinion that men who lived by observing the fights of birds and the condition of the liver of a goat were capable deciding the fate of men and their future:
“Whatever things the augur declares to be unjust, wicked, vicious, and accursed, let them be forsaken as prohibited and disastrous, and whoever will not obey these divine indications, let him suffer capital punishment.”
And that such men should be trusted to delivery capital punishment.
As for abortion, Cicero, that wise man who knew his view of justice was absolute and universal, (just like Phyllo knows), lived in a time when abortion was considered an inconvenience, and when new born infanticide was common.
In the absence of consensus, yes. In a proper society, you don't need to do that, because people would just naturally be on the same page as a function of their upbringing and shared history- in that sort of context, Cicero's statement makes perfect sense. So consider Lev- he created this thread so he could scoff at people that believe in an absolute justice. Keep that in mind for a few months, and watch the sort of absolutist statements he makes about right and wrong, just and unjust, wise and unwise. It may seem like a contradiction at first, but it's not; telling people with other ideologies that there is no right or wrong while you push your ideology with absolute conviction is merely a fine execution of the [i]man tian guo hai[/i] stratagem.
Cicero is saying that true law goes beyond the culture of a particular society. It’s foundation is human nature - human biology on the Earth. It’s possible that a particular society has found true law but if there is another society which uses different laws… how do we determine which is true law? Maybe neither is.
I had a discussion with Iambig, in Rant, where I suggested that using the hierarchy of human needs could be used to arrive at objective morality in the case of abortion.
I was going to write that but since most exchanges with Lev bear little fruit, I didn’t bother.
The trouble is few people are smart enough to know that there is not one. One size does not fit all, for all time.
And it would be wise to suspect the motives of those that suggest it is possible.
All the tyrants of history thought as much.
Maybe true law is insufficient. That is, maybe all the items covered by what can be absolutely guaranteed by a reflection on nature leaves you with a bland, unformed society with many questions left un-adjudicated.
Anyway, the answer to your question is surprisingly simple once you drop the post-modern presumptions. If society A is operating under true law, and society B has a different set of laws, then the answer to "How does society A know it is right" is precisely the same answer as they had before they met society B: whatever traditions, arguments, histories, goals or whatever their wise people used to justify their laws in the first place. Same with B: their grounds for thinking they are right is whatever arguments/traditions led them to where they are in the first place. Does that help the outsider standing in position C choose between them? No, but why should it? That's just C's lot in life. The point here is that "you know, some people disagree" is the worst imaginable argument for tossing away a belief that you had any conviction in in the first place. It adds nothing, it contributes nothing.
Think of it this way: Implicit in your question is the assumption that A and B have equal and opposite defenses for their beliefs, or else I could just say "The side with the better case" and I assume you meant to ask a tougher question than that. But then this becomes a thought experiment with no analogy to the real world. A doesn't believe their arguments are equal to B, they believe they are superior. B doesn't believe their arguments are equal to A, they are superior. If C thinks A's arguments and B's arguments are equally matched, then for C there is no answer to your question by definition; If you can't tell which law is true, then you can't tell which law is true.
Simply point, and to reiterate "Other people disagree" adds nothing.
Trivial example :
One person believes that eating strawberries is right. Another believes that eating them is wrong. Possible result : The strawberry eater survives and the non-eater starves. Eating strawberries is aligned with true law.
Simple society example :
There are two people on an island.
Case A: Each believes that survival is an individual effort and they are competing for resources.
Case B: They both believe that survival requires cooperation and sharing of resources.
Case C: One believes that he should use and exploit the other in order to survive.
The result may be that both die in case A, both survive in case B and one survives in case C. One can say that case B demonstrates beliefs of true law.
If in case C, both survive then one looks at trauma caused to the exploited person. Which makes case B closer to true law again.
If they both survive in all cases then one looks beyond mere survival. Was there a noticeable advantage to the participants? Was survival particularly difficult or harsh?
In any situation, there is an ideal goal and one best way of achieving that goal. The goal is not just arbitrary. It is directly related to the human condition - human biological animals living in the context of the Earth.
The complication comes from living in a society which is composed of perhaps thousands or millions or billions of people. There are many proposed goals and many ways to achieve those goals. There is considerable confusion and uncertainty. Nonetheless, Cicero believes that it is possible to reason to the correct goal and the correct way to achieve the goal. Understanding the human condition is not beyond human reason.
That is patently ridiculous. It was illegal to be homosexual in the UK until repealed in 1974. Whilst it was understood to be a fact of life, the law still gave the police to queer-bash. In India the buggery law was reinstated last year, making it illegal to have homosexual relations, after having been legal for one year. In many Christian countries in Africa it is thought perfectly acceptable to beat and kill gays, or imprison them.
As I speak in 13 countries I would be committing a Capital offence, by stating that I am an atheist, i.e. at risk of execution.
In Saudi Arabia I am classed as a “terrorist”.
And in the UK who has had to grant asylum to an Afghani atheist to save his life, technically the Blasphemy law is still on the books.
Not only One size does not fit all, for all time, it does not fit NOW, nor has it ever.
