Freedom and enforcement of morlals

Subject: Freedom and enforcement of morlals

vampboy 5.06.18 - 02:07pm
''When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what is not. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.''
Random source explaining naturalisic fallacy. * +

vampboy 5.06.18 - 02:09pm

@ vampboy - 5.06.18 - 01:56pm
so essentially man is a socio-political animal living with other socio- political animals, and through human reasoning, he grasps natural law which basically is a part of eternal law and contains principles and guidelines that guide individuals towards a common goal, and that is heaven. Sounds crazy? stay with me. He thinks as much as humans are capable of rationalization, many are either unwilling or incapable of deducing natural law and hence positive law plays a role under which government officials promulgate laws guiding humans towards reaching that common goal. Reasoning further gives us a general framework, we have an idea how the house we want to build looks like, but law then specifies it, allows it to manifest all the while deriving this from natural law.

Here is a question, should one ought to do something because it is? for etc if you say yes, one ought to eat vegetables because they are healthy, you're comitting a naturalistic fallacy. And yet saying vegetables are healthy is a factual statement.

I think an architect's example would have suited better in the second last sentence of the first paragraph.

* +

quiller 5.06.18 - 02:16pm
Well, that's cleared that up. * +

vampboy 5.06.18 - 02:21pm
is this realization self-evident though? Is it something we can discover through thinking and experiences that garner that thinking? That's what Finnis, another natural lawyer thought.
In his view, natural law capable of being taken from reason was simply an innate striving of humans to achieve human flourishment, and law is a tool that directs people to it.
Pursuit of common goods, less arbitrariness of our preference over one value for another, over one person for another, more detachment and commitment at the same time, respect for values of human flourishment, lessening consequentialism (he opposed utilitarian's inclination to consequences), following our conscience, and pursuing the common good. These ideals would lead towards human flourishment according to Finnis, yet isn't it a fallacy? According to him, it is inherent in us to do/pursue these things because we wish to achieve human flourishment.

And yet like Aquinas, he believed government or those in chage directed our behavior and guided us towards human flourishment through law directed by natural law visvia our reason. * +

vampboy 5.06.18 - 02:23pm

@ quiller - 5.06.18 - 02:16pm
Well, that's cleared that up.

Sorry, it's probably just my terrible way of writing things.

* +

quiller 5.06.18 - 02:28pm
Fair enough. *