Saturday, October 22, 2005

The Tao (Natural Law)

This is a must-read, especially if you were in the Witherspoon Fellowship or attended the IHS seminar in CA and heard me speak on Natural Law. Here's someone more articulate than me.

3 Comments:

Blogger W. said...

Thank you for posting this. Hope this sparks some discussion.

12:22 PM  
Blogger See Jay run said...

I find it very interesting that this article mentions the same problem in the current controversies of bioethics and neuroscience that the recent article I posted from the Mises Institute does (see 'Another Good One From Mises'): loss of objective criteria for morality, all the while being sold to us as truly 'objective' advancements in science and socialization.

Anyway, it seems to me that natural laws might just be what's required, or incident, for the protection of natural rights.

Since we've visited this before, let me say that of course all moral behavior and action by necessity exists within some context, which may or may not cause serious trouble in identifying correct action; correct action is, nonetheless, knowable through discovered and declared reason and protected - for a little while longer at least - in the common and higher law traditions painfully developed over thousands of years, traditions which curbed state powers and allowed that great philosopher Locke and then Jefferson after to declare the UTILITY in man's rights and his freedom.

I fear that as we forget and destroy our philosophical heritage those very guards against state aggrandizement are also destroyed, which won't be to anyone's utility :-).

Without the laws of nature and of nature's God, as T.J. put it, we have the will to power and a state god instead.

By the way, the "Chornicles of Narnia" is coming out in theaters sometime fairly soon I think! Man oh man, that should be fan-diddly-tastic. I really recommend to anyone who hasn't read those fabulous books by C.S. Lewis to do so. In fact, I am adding that to my suggested reading list effective now.

7:32 PM  
Blogger Max said...

Well, the neuroscience must make good and solid predictions of human behaviour on basis of their observations in order to proof that they have an idea about what they are talking. Right now, there is more guesswork than true science, f.e. when it comes to determine which part of the brain does what, they are still at the beginning to decypher that. And when it comes to complex decision, they can show you, where the activity is, but they cannot compute a prediction before this happens.

7:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home