Did you note that he invoked natural law in defense of our right to smoke marijuana? I'm not familiar with Lionel, but I couldn't agree more with the things that he says in the videos that you post here.
Did you note that he is a radio show host who is by no means an expert in natural law, and who made a number of inaccurate and misrepresentative statements in the course of his rant for purposes of entertainment?
THERE IS NO NATURAL LAW, unless you want to get into the laws of physics, like the law of gravity. And EVEN THOSE have exceptions of a sort.
You will do anything, repeat anything no matter how bogus, rather than educate yourself.
Moral philosophers for a long time accepted the idea of natural law, and it's still one that some people hold today. But I suppose that since the current fad is against it, it must be false. Why can't you understand that a person can know about an idea, but not believe it to be true?
Greg, you are so very vague about 'some people' hold it today.
Is that like your interpretation that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supported and endorsed by a few people?
Or by some people, do you mean yourself and a few other delusional gun loons who want to be stuck back in the 18th century (or earlier) reading de Vattel (yeah, let me know when THAT happens) wearing satin knee britches, for the sole reason that it is the only hope you have of even the flimsiest justification of rights?
I KNOW about the ideas of the Enlightenment, and I don't believe them to be true. In contrast, YOU rather clearly have no particular knowledge of any other moral philosophy, and I would go so far as to assert very little knowledge of the concepts of moral philosophy in which you claim to believe.
But hey - if you want to argue that the philosophers of that era were somehow superior in any way in their understanding of moral concepts and rights, do begin by espousing their take on slavery. Oh wait, they didn't get that one right. So, then you have to produce a better critieria for pickin' and a-choozin' what y'all are gonna believe of the Enlightenment era philosophers.
So, bottom line, you are really just cherry picking while being a know-nothing. THAT is so much crap, and undeserving of respect, regardless of whether or not you BEEEELIEEEEEEEEEEEVE (imagine the most exaggerated tones of some tele-evangelist).
Your belief means nothing in this instance any more than it would have meaning if you believed the earth was flat.
But hey - if you go back far enough, but not toooo far, you can find some philosopher who posited THAT was natural law too.
And your believing won't make that any more true than your other beliefs about natural law.
I'll take John Adams's stance on slavery, for example. Even Jefferson recognized that it was wrong. The point there is that their principles were correct, although their practice of the same fell short. Human nature, no?
But you keep making vague references to moral philosophy without naming any specific idea. Who and what, in your opinion, see things in better terms? It's not my job to build your case for you. You love to quote at length, so give me names and ideas.
Orlon, I think you should define natural law, prove it exists, and then show us why and how any of us should give a damn in practical terms for what is both a silly and largely outmoded construct as distinct from pragmatic reality in any form.
Or did you want me to prove the law of gravity, because I think Sir Isaac Newton already did that with the proverbial apple falling, and of course we also had the work of Galileo with his leaning tower of Pisa experiment demonstrating Aristotle's observations about the existence of gravity....
That's a false comparison, Dog Gone, since moral philosophy doesn't have the same standards of argument as physics. We can't perform a moral experiment to determine what conclusion is correct. Everything in moral philosophy is a construct--the question is which one do you accept.
DG, I'll take your answer as an admission that you were wrong in your original statement that, "THERE IS NO NATURAL LAW"
Certainly you yourself take advantage of that natural law that you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Or do you believe those are pragmatic realities? Orlin sellers
About natural law and freedom, I saw an interesting thing this morning. We had the second snow storm in two weeks last night. 10 inches last week, about 3 last night. These are unprecedented events here. Even the old timers cannot remember anything like this. (I may post something about this for the climate change deniers.)
I was walking this morning and came upon a blocked street. The intersection led to a very severe downhill which would have been very icy. The City put up barricades with signs on them that reminded me of Nazi Germany - Verboten.
My right to drive down that street has been removed by the government. The reason, I suppose is because if I did I could hurt myself and others, people live along that street and at the bottom of the hill.
I accept this just as the gun owner should accept the gun control laws which prevent him from hurting yourself and others.
Did you note that he invoked natural law in defense of our right to smoke marijuana? I'm not familiar with Lionel, but I couldn't agree more with the things that he says in the videos that you post here.
ReplyDeleteDid you note that he is a radio show host who is by no means an expert in natural law, and who made a number of inaccurate and misrepresentative statements in the course of his rant for purposes of entertainment?
DeleteTHERE IS NO NATURAL LAW, unless you want to get into the laws of physics, like the law of gravity. And EVEN THOSE have exceptions of a sort.
You will do anything, repeat anything no matter how bogus, rather than educate yourself.
Moral philosophers for a long time accepted the idea of natural law, and it's still one that some people hold today. But I suppose that since the current fad is against it, it must be false. Why can't you understand that a person can know about an idea, but not believe it to be true?
DeleteGreg, you are so very vague about 'some people' hold it today.
DeleteIs that like your interpretation that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is supported and endorsed by a few people?
Or by some people, do you mean yourself and a few other delusional gun loons who want to be stuck back in the 18th century (or earlier) reading de Vattel (yeah, let me know when THAT happens) wearing satin knee britches, for the sole reason that it is the only hope you have of even the flimsiest justification of rights?
I KNOW about the ideas of the Enlightenment, and I don't believe them to be true. In contrast, YOU rather clearly have no particular knowledge of any other moral philosophy, and I would go so far as to assert very little knowledge of the concepts of moral philosophy in which you claim to believe.
But hey - if you want to argue that the philosophers of that era were somehow superior in any way in their understanding of moral concepts and rights, do begin by espousing their take on slavery. Oh wait, they didn't get that one right. So, then you have to produce a better critieria for pickin' and a-choozin' what y'all are gonna believe of the Enlightenment era philosophers.
So, bottom line, you are really just cherry picking while being a know-nothing. THAT is so much crap, and undeserving of respect, regardless of whether or not you BEEEELIEEEEEEEEEEEVE (imagine the most exaggerated tones of some tele-evangelist).
Your belief means nothing in this instance any more than it would have meaning if you believed the earth was flat.
But hey - if you go back far enough, but not toooo far, you can find some philosopher who posited THAT was natural law too.
And your believing won't make that any more true than your other beliefs about natural law.
I'll take John Adams's stance on slavery, for example. Even Jefferson recognized that it was wrong. The point there is that their principles were correct, although their practice of the same fell short. Human nature, no?
DeleteBut you keep making vague references to moral philosophy without naming any specific idea. Who and what, in your opinion, see things in better terms? It's not my job to build your case for you. You love to quote at length, so give me names and ideas.
DG said: THERE IS NO NATURAL LAW
ReplyDeleteDefine 'natural law' and then provide proof that it does not exist.
Yhank you.
orlin sellers
Orlon, I think you should define natural law, prove it exists, and then show us why and how any of us should give a damn in practical terms for what is both a silly and largely outmoded construct as distinct from pragmatic reality in any form.
DeleteOr did you want me to prove the law of gravity, because I think Sir Isaac Newton already did that with the proverbial apple falling, and of course we also had the work of Galileo with his leaning tower of Pisa experiment demonstrating Aristotle's observations about the existence of gravity....
That's a false comparison, Dog Gone, since moral philosophy doesn't have the same standards of argument as physics. We can't perform a moral experiment to determine what conclusion is correct. Everything in moral philosophy is a construct--the question is which one do you accept.
DeleteDG, I'll take your answer as an admission that you were wrong in your original statement that, "THERE IS NO NATURAL LAW"
ReplyDeleteCertainly you yourself take advantage of that natural law that you have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Or do you believe those are pragmatic realities?
Orlin sellers
About natural law and freedom, I saw an interesting thing this morning. We had the second snow storm in two weeks last night. 10 inches last week, about 3 last night. These are unprecedented events here. Even the old timers cannot remember anything like this. (I may post something about this for the climate change deniers.)
ReplyDeleteI was walking this morning and came upon a blocked street. The intersection led to a very severe downhill which would have been very icy. The City put up barricades with signs on them that reminded me of Nazi Germany - Verboten.
My right to drive down that street has been removed by the government. The reason, I suppose is because if I did I could hurt myself and others, people live along that street and at the bottom of the hill.
I accept this just as the gun owner should accept the gun control laws which prevent him from hurting yourself and others.
See my reply to your recent article on this subject.
Delete