4 ms·

Natural lawyers generally don't appeal to evolutionary biology to ground their moral claims, and would probably universally cry that to try and do so, would be

Natural lawyers generally don't appeal to evolutionary biology to ground their moral claims, and would probably universally cry that to try and do so, would be folly. Note...I'm not endorsing NL here, I don't find it very convincing, but... The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. It is definitely not falling apart by pointing out the obvious, that biology varies over time. In some respect, NL has dealt with that "problem" since the time of Aristotle. (For a start: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/)

dwaltrip 9y ago
> The parent's point about philosophical literacy is apropos here. Natural law and its underlying metaphysics is very technical and deep. This may be true, but such endeavors must reconcile with modern scientific understanding one way or another, or they can lose validity/usefulness. I haven't seen any convincing efforts to do so. Note, this would be less of an issue if they didn't make certain specific claims or rely on certain specific premises that the natural sciences directly touch. E.g. the "purpose" of sexual organs. One relevant idea that has been growing stronger for me is that a philosophical endeavor needs some sort of strong, tangible connection to reality in order to have meaning or usefulness. Without such grounding, it is far too easy to end up with something that seems reasonable on the surface but may actually be nonsensical or illusory.