Also, "evolution (also known as nature)" is a weird thing to say. Evolution is a natural process, not nature itself. That's like saying "condensation (also known as nature)."
May 31, 2023·edited May 31, 2023Liked by Amos Wollen
"Evolution is pretty much THE natural process."
I don't know, planet-formation seems to be a lot more common :)
I also don't understand your second point. Natural law theory doesn't claim that the animal kingdom is a happy, harmonious family: it simply says that creatures have certain objective flourishing conditions and natural faculties, and that acting in accord with these things is good, while acting against them is immoral.
Do you deny that people have faculties which have certain natural ends (e.g. the visual faculty is *for* seeing, the reproductive faculty is *for* reproducing, and so on)?
Also, the fact that the natural world is largely hostile to life (though not half as hostile as it might have been) is irrelevant for NLT.
Natural law theorists: all your ethical intuitions are belong to us.
https://deveradoctrina.substack.com/p/steak-eggs-and-crimes-against-nature
https://deveradoctrina.substack.com/p/procreation-and-marriage
https://deveradoctrina.substack.com/p/why-monogamy-is-not-immoral
Nlt is a crazy view.
Think what you like, just keep away from my organs.
It's not your organs you want. Your dog, however...
NLT doesn't say "if it happens in the wild, then it's good." You might want to start here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Also, "evolution (also known as nature)" is a weird thing to say. Evolution is a natural process, not nature itself. That's like saying "condensation (also known as nature)."
"Evolution is pretty much THE natural process."
I don't know, planet-formation seems to be a lot more common :)
I also don't understand your second point. Natural law theory doesn't claim that the animal kingdom is a happy, harmonious family: it simply says that creatures have certain objective flourishing conditions and natural faculties, and that acting in accord with these things is good, while acting against them is immoral.
Do you deny that people have faculties which have certain natural ends (e.g. the visual faculty is *for* seeing, the reproductive faculty is *for* reproducing, and so on)?
Also, the fact that the natural world is largely hostile to life (though not half as hostile as it might have been) is irrelevant for NLT.