OVO

Trevor Blake: Natural Law [LINK-ZUM]

The following is from a letter in progress...

Some people claim that natural law exists. I have a moderate disagreement with this claim. At times the claim natural law exists seems to be the case. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) I must eat to continue living, therefore (c) what impedes my ability to go on eating is eventually 'illegal' to me. But at times the claim natural law exists does not seem to be the case. What is the natural law that dictates my preference for just so much black pepper in the breading of fried chicken? The strongest case I can make for natural law existing is that in any contradiction one claim at minimum is false. After that it's a guessing game. These examples show that natural law exists but is not applicable to all experiences. Therefore natural law can serve as part of but not a foundation for law.

Some people claim that natural law is known. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) a specific combination of nutrients will consumed today will optimize my going on living, therefore (c) I must eat a specific combination of nutrients today. There is, objectively / naturally, a specific meal I should eat today. I do not know it and can only at best approximate it. The effort to identify that exact optimal meal would take so long that conditions would change and the answer no longer apply. This example shows that natural law is sometimes knowable but unknown. Therefore natural law can serve as part of but not a foundation for law.

Some people claim that natural law is preferable. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) I must eat to continue living, therefore (c) I should eat what my body needs. But it is this very same body that prefers fried chicken over steamed yams, without regard to the fact that yams are more optimal in nutrition. This example follows my previous examples but is not my best. My best example is that a virus, or crocodile, is following its own natural law were it to consume me but this is clearly not preferable for me. The naturalistic fallacy is that natural law is preferable while playing a ghostly bait-and-switch game as to who it is preferable for. On the one hand natural law is preferable to humanity (and this particular human) because humanity is of nature. On the the other hand, when I'm being eaten by a crocodile, natural law is preferable to "Nature" (as much of an anthropomorphic ghost as "God"). Law comes from humanity. It is based on what we have inherited from the past and what we invent today. It is possible to learn from our errors but not to predict our errors before subjecting them to criticism. Law should be subject to criticism; doubt scours out only error, never fact. Therefore natural law is preferable only sometimes, not always.

Some people claim that science is the accumulation of truth statements. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I claim that science is the accumulation of falsified statements. Any scientific claim is subject to criticism, likely to be incomplete and likely to include some measure of error. When a scientific claim is made, it is a the claim "if X is not true then Y" and not "if X is true then Y." Science comes from humanity. It is based on what we have inherited from the past and what we invent today. It is possible to learn from our errors but not to predict our errors before subjecting them to criticism. Science should be subject to criticism; doubt scours out only error, never fact.

When some people claim that natural law exists, is known and is preferable I take it in a poetic sense and not a literal sense. It inspires but does not inform. To speak less in the abstract, they are a tonic against political correctness or letting oneself off the hook from the consequences of choices made. But they are not literally true. I place these claims in the same category as private ritual. My curses or blessings are not going to literally make ill or good occur in themselves but are rough mental landmarks for a path that I have to actually walk with my actual feet. Regarding the claim that science is the accumulation of truth claims, this is a claim in error but closer to the truth than the majority of theistic thinking (i.e. the majority of humanity today and throughout history). These claims are in error but the errors do not negate my decision to associate with those who speak of natural law.

Labels: philosophy