Natural law vs. man made laws

[Gjallarhorn]

I can't give you an honest that answer to that, I think that modern society has shaped the psyche of modern man to such a degree that it's almost impossible to compare pre modern man to modern man. I think we all still have what's called a conscience, which is your innate ability to tell right from wrong. if that is still healthy, as in intact and fully functioning, if one still feels guilt for ones wrongs, then that is, at least for the most part, mentally healthy. In other words if you commit a selfish act, which is harmful to another, and don't feel bad about it, you might not be a very healthy individual mentally.

Why would "pre-modern man" be any better mentally than now, considering the archaic laws they enacted in the first place?

You give no method of determining. You simply don't like society.

 

[arcanum]

Why would "pre-modern man" be any better mentally than now, considering the archaic laws they enacted in the first place?

You give no method of determining. You simply don't like society.

I wouldn't necessarily say I don't like society, as you put it, but I think very few people really pause to examine the effects of modern society on the human psyche.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I wouldn't necessarily say I don't like society, as you put it, but I think very few people really pause to examine the effects of modern society on the human psyche.

...but then you talk about "natural law" as if it would be some sort of better alternative and yet cannot explain anything about what it is except that it's seemingly related to modern morality. Doesn't that go against this idea that modern society is harmful?

 

[arcanum]

...but then you talk about "natural law" as if it would be some sort of better alternative and yet cannot explain anything about what it is except that it's seemingly related to modern morality. Doesn't that go against this idea that modern society is harmful?

Hell I don't claim to be able to be able to articulate in a detailed matter, much like in law, the dichotomy between man made laws and the laws of nature which are universal. I would say that natural law always has been the operating system upon which most if not all cultures on this planet labored under, until modernity intruded upon all cultures on this planet. But there were exceptions of course, human and animal sacrifice have obviously been committed, so I'm not saying pre western culture or religion was a panacea at all. But the difference between natural law and man made law is this: There are universal rules of conduct preserved in one's human conscience, and if fully functional and operating properly then that's all you need. You don't need the 613 laws of Moses or the labyrinthine laws of the US justice system, which are in all reality, merely a barbed wire fence around an individual's psyche.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hell I don't claim to be able to be able to articulate in a detailed matter, much like in law, the dichotomy between man made laws and the laws of nature which are universal. I would say that natural law always has been the operating system upon which most if not all cultures on this planet labored under, until modernity intruded upon all cultures on this planet. But there were exceptions of course, human and animal sacrifice have obviously been committed, so I'm not saying pre western culture or religion was a panacea at all. But the difference between natural law and man made law is this: There are universal rules of conduct preserved in one's human conscience, and if fully functional and operating properly then that's all you need. You don't need the 613 laws of Moses or the labyrinthine laws of the US justice system, which are in all reality, merely a barbed wire fence around an individual's psyche.

But you do. Why do you think laws were made in the first place? Instinct doesn't articulate, and humans are vastly beyond the primitive capabilities that "conscience" can supply (I also object to the use of the term conscience here, since conscience is incredibly relative to culture).

 

[arcanum]

But you do. Why do you think laws were made in the first place? Instinct doesn't articulate, and humans are vastly beyond the primitive capabilities that "conscience" can supply (I also object to the use of the term conscience here, since conscience is incredibly relative to culture).

Your statement that conscience is incredibly relative to culture, I would also apply to man made law and norms. What is lawful and proper in one country or culture is not so in another, age of consent would be one example.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Your statement that conscience is incredibly relative to culture, I would also apply to man made law and norms. What is lawful and proper in one country or culture is not so in another, age of consent would be one example.

So, in the end, we have nothing objective or consistent to base laws on.

 

[arcanum]

So, in the end, we have nothing objective or consistent to base laws on.

No, I wouldn't go that far. The problem is human society is at this moment much too numerous and too complex for it's own good and unfortunately laws are necessary. But laws were once based on common sense, now in their labyrinthine sense, are very contrary to what one would deem to be intuitively correct...if there is such a term.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

No, I wouldn't go that far. The problem is human society is at this moment much too numerous and too complex for it's own good and unfortunately laws are necessary. But laws were once based on common sense, now in their labyrinthine sense, are very contrary to what one would deem to be intuitively correct...if there is such a term.

Laws were based on common sense?

...have you read the Code of Hammurabi? Or any tribal laws?

 

[LuisDantas]

Regard the OP, I have long maintained that laws are usually misunderstood.

It is not their role to improve society, nor to make moral statements. When they are used to attempt to fulfill those roles, the results are predictably destructive.

Law is instead a statement of political will. It establishes what the authority which backs it up sees as acceptable and to which extent and with which consequences.

It is very, very easy to find a conflict between morality and law. We should accept that as natural and accept particularly that people will often find themselves in moral conflict with the established powers. That is hardly unexpected, and definitely a good thing: how else could citizens pressure the authorities into watching the morality of their actions?