To the extent a hinge proposition is presupposition that cannot itself be rationally established, defended, or challenged, that would be the value-free law. Natural law is justification, rationale, and reason behind the law. We used to actually argue that in court, especially in equity. Maybe that has become passé, I don't know.

Meh. I was thinking more of hinge proposition as a foundation. If you are using "natural law" to mean "justification" then you are misusing the term "law". One can always ask of a law - and here I will explicitly include natural law - "is it morally good?" One ought not replace morality with circularity.

I was thinking more of hinge proposition as a foundation. — Banno

I'm no expert on hinge propositions, but when I looked it up, they were said to be not rationally established, defended or challenged. That would be value-free law, not Natural Law. Natural Law is the opposite, as I addressed before in describing feelings, justice, values, justification and reason, etc.

Nor am I misusing the term "law." As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all. Law falls in line behind it; either that or it lacks reason. Who is going to say we have no reason for our law? Apparently the positivist. LOL! Good luck with that. If a law has no reason (no justification) then it can't be just and then there is no reason to obey it (other than the threat of violence). And who is going to say might makes right? Apparently the positivist. LOL!

One can and always should ask of a law "is it morally good." Doing so is not replacing morality with circularity. It's begging for reason, for foundation, for justification, for an answer as to why a law should be obeyed.

...they were said to be not rationally established, defended or challenged. That would be value-free law, — James Riley

Why? After all, values do not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged... A value looks like a prime candidate for a hinge proposition to me: Why do you like vanilla ice cream? No reason - I just do. My value is not rationally established, defended or challenged; but it is not value-free.

It remains problematic to say that natural law justifies positive law, and also that "Natural law is justification, rationale, and reason behind the law"; all you are saying is that positive law is justified by the justification, rationale, and reason behind the law - that law is justified by what justifies it.

That ain't helpful

After all, values do not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged.. — Banno

It's a non-issue for law, if law is value-free. But I'm not sure where you get the idea that a value does not need to be rationally established, defended or challenged. It most certainly does if it's going to be persuasive. As already explained, that feeling that we find valuable cannot justifiably be reduced to a value until there is a reason for it. My liking ice cream is not a value, and even if we were to stretch a "like" to becoming a value, my "value" of ice cream, unlike the law, is not seeking to persuade anyone else to like it.

That ain't helpful — Banno

It ain't helpful because you're allegation of circularity is based on your failure to address the linear chronology. It's laid out in my previous post and I'll not keep repeating here. Suffice to say, Natural Law does not so much justify law, as law rides in on the coat tails of Natural Law.

You're still trying to justify law with more law.

You're still trying to justify law with more law. — Banno

No, I'm not.

Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it.

Ah, excellent. Glad to hear it. — Banno

That would be the expected (demanded?) response to a value-free law. I, however, as a champion of Natural Law, have done the courtesy of justifying my response in a linear explanation in another post, demonstrating that I am not "trying to justify law with more law."

...in another post, — James Riley

A link might help, then. To what do you refer?

A link might help, then. To what do you refer? — Banno

I'm new here, and apparently people don't talk to or respond to anyone not tagged. So I apologize. I just assumed you had been reading this thread. Maybe you are just doing drive-by sniping with no background in the discussion. That would explain the failure to understand. So, by way of justification, I will just refer you to the OP and then page six of this thread.

I'm going to go watch a movie and cede the carcass of this beaten horse.

Oh, I've been reading the thread, wiht interest. But that's hundreds of posts - why make me guess to which you re referring? The one about walking up the hill? The one about your dad?

Enjoy the movie.

Ninth post up from bottom of page six, et seq.

While I think Natural Law is at worst a chimera, at best a misnomer, I think that the more our judgments and decisions, including those regarding law, are guided by informed reasoning, the better they will be. — Ciceronianus the White

Laws that are mala prohibita prohibit conduct unrelated to morality. The zoning law dictating the color scheme of the homes is an example. Laws that are mala in se prohibit conduct on the basis of morality. Rape and murder would be the example. Mala in se are the laws we're interested in here.

If we accept moral realism, then the rules governing the creation of a proper mala in se law are immutable. We may not be correct in our conclusions of what is moral, but under moral realism, there is a Good and a law requiring rape is a logically contradictory mala in se law. It is a law demanding moral conduct yet it is immoral.

The rules governing a mala in se law are the rules of natural law. That is, if moral rules exist objectively, then laws dictating morality (mala in se laws) must adhere to these rules. The natural law cannot be violated under this scheme.

Is the debate then only over what you insist the word "law" means? It does appear you wish to prescribe a definition to the term "law" and require it only mean a specific codified written rule by a human law making body. That's simply not what the posters here take to be the definition of "law" within the the context of natural law though.

Ah, cheers.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523588

oh well, my thought concerning hinge propositions was an attempt to understand your position in my own terms. I suppose if you don't agree with it, then I have not understood your position.

I suppose if you don't agree with it, then I have not understood your position. — Banno

I don't know if I agree with it or not. I did not know what a "hinge proposition" was so I looked it up and it seemed to describe simple law and not Natural Law and so I commented on that.

mala prohibita — Hanover

Mala in se — Hanover

:up:

I don't speak Latin but that does bring back memories of school. I thought it was malum but again, I don't speak Latin and it's been a million years.

What the Greeks understood by 'reason' is not what the term came to mean for us through modern philosophy. Anaxagoras said 'nous' (mind or intellect) orders the cosmos. Reason is a Latin term, from ratio, used to translate the Greek dianoia, discursive thinking. It differs from noesis, a kind of direct apprehension or seeing with the mind.

What the logos meant for Heraclitus is controversial. When he says: " ... all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos ...", he might mean that the Logos is the guiding force or he could simply mean that what he is about to tell us is the way things are, the truth. Preceding this he begins: "Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it – not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time …".

It should noted that the Greek philosophers, in imitation of the Greek poets, placed the authority of what they said not with themselves but with God or the gods.

In the Phaedo Socrates says that he had been drawn to Anaxagoras' claim that Nous orders all things, but was disappointed to learn that he gave only physical explanations and did not say why things should be the way they are, that is, why it is best that they be this way. Socrates was left on his own to discover what is
best, that is, his "second sailing", his recourse to speech.

It is not divine reason made manifest in speech, but rather, human speech attempting to know what is best. — Fooloso4

I grew up with the notion that songs and stories and inventions are in the universe waiting to be manifest by someone. Such as an idea that its time has come. This goes with Jung's notion of realizing concepts through experience. Humans living in comfortable climates where it is easy to grown food have a diety that provides for them. Human beings who live in harsh climates have a sky god who kills people in snowstorms and does not take care of them, so they live in spite of a god's effort to kill them.

For me what Heraclitus said means that Logos is the guiding force. How I understand logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe does not begin with a reasoner. It begins with universal laws. It is as it is because it can not be otherwise. The reason things stay on the earth is gravity. The reason we hear is both the receptor in our ear paired with brain function and sound vibrations. When we look for the reason of things we get philosophy and then science. We move away from the belief in supernatural beings.

Etymology. Jinn is an Arabic collective noun deriving from the Semitic root JNN (Arabic: جَنّ / جُنّ ‎, jann), whose primary meaning is 'to hide' or 'to adapt'.Some authors interpret the word to mean, literally, 'beings that are concealed from the senses'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinn — Wikipedia

This notion could come from the deserts where mirages are apt to happen. However, other cultures independently came with a notion of a trickster and tell about it in folktales. Jinn and tricksters violate the law as we know it.

Your sentence calls to mind something I wrote a few years ago, out to Utah and Arizona: — James Riley

I don't know your course of study but by nature, you are a geologist or related science such as anthropology. I believe we are in the "resurrection" only it is manifested by normal humans and science, not supernaturally. Geologists and anthropologists and related sciences are bringing the past into the present and I think it is our job to learn all we can and rethink our understanding of reality.

I like

Banno
11.6k
Natural law as legal hinge propositions... — Banno

When we blend that with the "resurrection" we get something very exciting, and as far know we are the only life form that can do this and the technology of computers and the internet is essential to this expansion of consciousness.

We move away from the belief in supernatural beings. — Athena

I have no belief in the supernatural but I do recognize the power of myth and the imagination.

I have no belief in the supernatural but I do recognize the power of myth and the imagination. — Fooloso4

Absolutely! My thoughts on that are being explored in a different thread. In this thread, we base our laws and policies on what we imagine to be true. Is there is a difference between what we imagine is true and what we can know is true?

Mala in se are the laws we're interested in here. — Hanover

That "we" doesn't include me. I'm addressing the law, which includes zoning laws and other laws. I don't think we can select particular laws and use them to define what the law consists of, if we want to define and analyze what this interesting thing called "the law" we humans create is and means, and how it functions.

It does appear you wish to prescribe a definition to the term "law" and require it only mean a specific codified written rule by a human law making body. That's simply not what the posters here take to be the definition of "law" within the the context of natural law though. — Hanover

Which means that I draw a distinction between positive law and natural law, and others do not. I find the distinction obvious, and frankly nobody has in the least bit challenged that distinction.

We lawyers don't practice natural law; we're not "natural lawyers." When we attended law school, you and I weren't taught how to be good,or just, or moral, nor were we taught that the law we were to practice was what God or nature established. We weren't admitted to the bar because we were learned in natural law or ethics. The Uniform Commercial Code wasn't written in heaven (especially that portion of it relating to commercial paper, which it is more likely would have been written in hell).

If people define "natural law" as being in some sense related to and identical with our sense of justice, sense of duty--sense of right or wrong, or morality--that's fine with me. But I don't think those are laws.
Nor is my definition of law unusual, judging from dictionary definitions. According to Merriam Webster Online, law is:

(1)a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
(2): the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules
The courts exist to uphold, interpret, and apply the law.
(3): COMMON LAW
b(1): the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law

The Free Dictionary:

Law
A body of rules of conduct of binding legal force and effect, prescribed, recognized, and enforced by controlling authority.
In U.S. law, the word law refers to any rule that if broken subjects a party to criminal punishment or civil liability

Collins English Dictionary:

The law is a system of rules that a society or government develops in order to deal with crime, business agreements, and social relationships. You can also use the law to refer to the people who work in this system.

We can all agree that laws should be just. I would agree, in fact, that laws should be in accord with reason. But we fool ourselves and create confusion when we insist that laws which aren't just or reasonable don't constitute laws, or aren't part of the law.

As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all. — James Riley

Well clearly, to call something a law when it doesn't address law at all couldn't be a misuse of the word "law"! Who would think that something called a "law" would have anything to do with law?

And that is why the law now operates largely by the stick and not by persuasion of reason. — James Riley

Ah. I'm curious. When did the law operate by "persuasion of reason"?

As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law." It's not addressing "law" at all.
— James Riley

Well clearly, to call something a law when it doesn't address law at all couldn't be a misuse of the word "law"! Who would think that something called a "law" would have anything to do with law? — Ciceronianus the White

You are failing to parse what you and I both have been parsing all along: A distinction between Natural Law and law. I even tried "law law" when I thought you were falling behind, but when you caught up, I figured I didn't need to do that any more. So, let me try it again: "As demonstrated in the same post, Natural Law (justified) is not misusing the term "law law." It's not addressing "law law" at all." Law law springs from Natural Law so, while it may address Natural Law, Natural Law is not going to spend a whole lot of time, if any, discussing law law which tries to live up to it's mentor.

Ah. I'm curious. When did the law operate by "persuasion of reason"? — Ciceronianus the White

Ever since it tried to get along without the stick. Life's a lot easier when people go along with you because they agree with you. You know, reason. But the reason that you better obey because I'll smack you if you don't, is not reason at all.

That "we" doesn't include me. I'm addressing the law, which includes zoning laws and other laws. I don't think we can select particular laws and use them to define what the law consists of, if we want to define and analyze what this interesting thing called "the law" we humans create is and means, and how it functions. — Ciceronianus the White

Except there are different kinds of laws, some that require an evaluation of the justice they provide and others that don't. It's for that reason a homosexual has the right to marry a person of the same gender, despite the law saying he does not. All laws aren't in principle the same, so you can't treat them as the same.

We lawyers don't practice natural law; we're not "natural lawyers." When we attended law school, you and I weren't taught how to be good,or just, or moral, nor were we taught that the law we were to practice was what God or nature established. We weren't admitted to the bar because we were learned in natural law or ethics. The Uniform Commercial Code wasn't written in heaven (especially that portion of it relating to commercial paper, which it is more likely would have been written in hell). — Ciceronianus the White

Again, how is this at all relevant? If it is in fact that case that you and I were taught a particular way to practice law, does that mean that is the only way to be taught? As I've noted several times (1) there are instances in Anglo law where reference is made to natural law and I cited a case that made direct reference to God, and (2) there are many societies that do in fact unapologetically subject their laws to a determination as to whether it's consistent with God's will.

We can all agree that laws should be just. I would agree, in fact, that laws should be in accord with reason. But we fool ourselves and create confusion when we insist that laws which aren't just or reasonable don't constitute laws, or aren't part of the law. — Ciceronianus the White

If a system if devised that subjects legislatively passed laws to a theocratic body to determine if they comport to divine law, then do you argue that it's a law until it's over-ruled and now not a law, or would you agree it was more akin to a bill that had yet to gain full force of law until it received theocratic review? If you argue the latter, then we don't fool ourselves when we claim laws passed by men were never true laws if they violated natural law, but we accept the true legitimacy of the law is dependent upon whether it passes fundamental principles.

And, even should you claim that the system I've described is not the American one, that hardly matters.

I've defined the law as I think it to be. So have the dictionaries I referred to above. By those definitions, the laws of one state or society may differ from the laws of another. The laws of Iceland may vary from the law in the U.S. They nonetheless remain the laws of Iceland.

If you disagree with those definitions, so be it.

So Natural Law is not the law. It seems we agree after all.

Ever since it tried to get along without the stick. — James Riley

Which was when? Where?