Criticisms of Natural Moral Law

In this tutorial video we'll examine three criticisms (and replies) of Natural Moral Law:
That the world is not teleological
That one cannot make a leap from an "is" to an "ought"
The Euthyphro dilemma
Perfect for the study of A-level RS

[@juanflorenciogonzalezmateo9803]

In relation to the first objection one might thus ask: is it possible to develop any knowledge using only a mechanistic approach? And it is a fact that it is possible. What cannot be explained within a mechanistic theory is the advance of science. Scientists doing experimental and theoretical work are part of the world we would like to explain. Now, when a scientist is developing an experimental apparatus, you cannot explain what he is doing by looking for the mechanical causes of its action. Instead, you can approach him and ask him: what is the purpose of your work? Or, you can wait for it to be finished and, if you have enough intellectual strength and recognize that his work had a purpose, this knowledge could allow you to discover it and thus understand the action of the scientist. Understanding this aspect of the world is no small thing, and it is not based on efficient causality alone. A mechanistic approach can render interesting results when applied to stones and similar objects; but for nobler realities, it is not enough.

[@cobyleebrooks]

I’m still a bit of a philosophy novice here, but I think I agree. I compare what you said to this: when we think about nature, a lot of times we externalize it-it’s ‘out there’. and we don’t think to put ourselves into it. after all, WE ARE nature too. a classical concept of God, who is ‘up there’, ‘out there’ and omnipotent/immutable, cannot possibly relate to nature because God does not embody it.. thus falling into the same problem. laws exist in the universe because they evolved that way, and because they work-for now. but are subject to change with even the slightest degree of variation. for all we know they are more like persistences. yet there are philosophical traditions who hold to static modes of being. omnipotence is a classical trait derived from an idea of an immutable creator, and is very much a greek concept.. carried on by the western Christian tradition. but it is not Jewish (the supposed basis of its foundation). if God embodies the universe, then God therefore is the scientist who has not finished the experiment.. it’s a phenomenon that cannot be explained by mere mechanics and destiny. they are by random occurrence, enticed into the next best scenario, and why life is actually.. miraculous

[@ritiksinha2356]

Great video, which software are you using?

[@kimmyswan]

Then the good is not objective, but subjective.

[@adsffdaaf4170]

yea that's true

[@justineorbana658]

What are the counter arguments against natural law??

[@SkullyTheHypnoSkull]

I'm looking for some too. I'm thinking about calling the Atheist Experience, they don't have any videos on KZbin debunking Natural Law.

[@TheCogito]

Check out the full course, with criticisms of Natural Law at cogito.education

[@kimmyswan]

Can’t one just reject that humans have a natural inclination to do the good? This would explain why “the good” varies both historically and culturally.

[@wet-read]

I am aware of, and thought of myself, objections to it. Specifically, objections to the notion of "proper function", which seems to be the bedrock of it all. You know, the stuff Tim Hsiao speaks on and advocates.

[@someonenotnoone]

You have no evidence. That's the counter argument. Might as well say "What are the counter arguments against the existence of unicorns??"