Comments for Is Natural Law Extinct? at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 4 out of 4 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Thu, 20 Jun 2013 04:50:37 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/is-natural-law-extinct.html#comment-4947 A few off the cuff comments: While Darwinism as commonly understood argues for serendipitous selection, the result is highly rational: bird x or bird y has attribute a or b for a reason. Think the premise for the essay is based on an over-simplified premise about Darwinism. Darwinism does not address free will. In "free will" is the crux of natural law, metaphysics, and all of humanity's struggle to understand itself. In that sense what can Darwinism tell us about ourselves? I can will to do X or Y or both. I am not compelled by biology to do either. Traditional understanding of Darwinism talks about the survival of the species and how the species optimizes itself to survive..the survival of the fittest thesis. Yet, I would argue that while that trend exists, it exists in balance with the environment in which it finds itself. That is to say that a species which dominates its natural environment usually finds itself a footnote in history of animals/plants that once graced the earth. The natural order of the environment around a species shapes the species. The processes are not entirely random but highly interactively coupled to the environment and the inherent order in the environment. - Terri Sat, 02 Oct 2010 07:13:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/is-natural-law-extinct.html#comment-4937 David Bonagura's piece, I think, is well done--especially insofar as it emphasizes how natural law theory, as expressed by Ratzinger (and of course also by his predecessor Wojtyla) involves personalism as a complement to the classical philosophical/theological tradition. I would prefer to let Hadley Arkes speak for himself, but I also believe the comment by fellow philosophy professor Howard Kainz makes several valuable points. To elaborate on just one such point, where Kainz speaks of "the fundamental appetites connected with human nature," it might be added that these appetites, or inclinations, take on moral significance in light of the overall teleological perspective of Aristotelian and Thomistic thought. That is, a fundamental principle of this tradition is that "every agent acts for an end;" and, in the case of rational beings, notably ourseves, personally selected ends either conform or fail to conform to our end (Greek 'telos') as established by nature--and ultimately, for Christians, as noted by Bonagura, God's creative 'logos'. According to traditional proponents of natural (moral) law, this end can to some extent be grasped by properly disposed natural reason; and clues to aspects of our end are provided through judicious judgment concerning our natural inclinations precisely as the types of beings--i.e., human persons--we are. - Jack Carlson Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:44:33 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/is-natural-law-extinct.html#comment-4936 Isn't instinct a kind of stand-in term with no actual meeting - just a place keeper until the relevant data arrive? Obviously reason that arises out of Blind Chance is apparent, not actual, which must be the point of the Darwinists. It makes a mockery of their reasonableness. - Other Joe Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:06:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/is-natural-law-extinct.html#comment-4934 I don't believe Hadley Arkes considers himself the "resident expert" in natural law. In his fine book, Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths, he disclaims any belief in a theory of natural law, but emphasizes searching for basic truths grounding the laws. He seems to look to Immanuel Kant's "universalization hypothesis," as a worthy avatar of natural law, but notes that Kant himself did not accept natural law theories. A frequent criticism of natural law is that it is too vague -- "act rationally," "do good and avoid evil" -- the world nods but yawns at such admonitions. As I argue in my 2004 book on natural law, the natural law theory of Thomas Aquinas is much more specific, and is based on the fundamental appetites connected with human nature. The "new natural law" theory (Finnis, Grisez, and others) tries to provide moral guidance without accepting the ontological foundations in Aquinas' theory. But, in my opinion, their new ethical theory, based on "fundamental human values," falls short of the "self-evidence" that it claims. - Howard Kainz Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:27:26 +0100