McCulloch Yes, thank you. Physical laws are discernable by mankind.
Of course this is a rather recent development for mankind.
If mankind is on a 24 hour clock, it is only within the last few minutes that this has been true.
Being generous, can we agree there was some success at discerning physical laws only within the last 3000 years or so.
Also, that for the first one or two millenniums this progress was very slow, only modestly dependable, and many truths concerning what might be called physical laws, were later shown to be false.
Really it is within the last five or six centuries when real progress was made.
Concerning the whole body of knowledge we have about physical laws, the vase majority of it is less than a century old.
A century from now we may look back and marvel at the progress we have made discerning the natural moral laws.
They are discovered by various means, observation, reasoning and intuition. Tests can be devised to determine objectively if our understanding of these physical laws is correct.
If I am right and there are natural moral laws, and if they can be studied or tested scientifically, it would be the field of behavioral science, which is even less developed that the natural sciences.
In order to test whether moral laws are universal or natural, it seems to me it would be necessary to study various cultures across time and distances. I am certainly not capable of this, and I do not believe science is either.
Some subject areas offer more of a challenge to scientific investigation than others.
I would say that psychology has show that some deviant behavior has been shown to have consistently negative effects on individuals and society in general. Child molestation and incest are examples. We also know that incest has a very negative effect not only in the minds of victims, but on the gene pool as well. This can be taken to be evidence of a natural moral law against incest.
These alleged absolute moral laws which apply only to sentient beings, how do you test them?
Well, of course the only way to test them is with controlled studies.
A natural moral law would be proposed, a control group would be instructed to violate this law, and the results would be observed, and compared with a different control group which did not violate the proposed law. Such a study would be immoral by definition. Encouraging immoral behavior in others would have to be immoral, regardless of one’s definition of immorality.
Even if this were undertaken, results would not be definitive unless similar studies were conducted across time and cultures, which is an impossibility with current technology.
Even in the natural sciences, not all theories can be scientifically tested.
How do you determine objectively if our understanding of these laws is correct?
There is no way that I know of, and that does not bother me.
I am not responsible for the morality of others, only my own.
My goal is to act morally correct in all situations. To always do the right thing, to use hindsight to recognize times when I may have violated a natural moral law.
How do you objectively differentiate between absolute moral laws and other moral principles?
I would say I can have an objective understanding of a real world experience and not be able to convince others who disagree with me. They will say my awareness is subjective, and nothing I can do will convince them otherwise. This is not evidence they are right.
When I connect with objective reality, I have done enough. Others do not need to share my objectivity.
Naturally if I believe I have connected with objective reality, and I am alone in my beliefs, I should be recommended for clinical help. I would hope reasoning would show me I was probably mistaken.
If I am asked to respect a moral law, I ask myself if there is reason to believe it is universal and natural or contrived and specific for certain cultures (subjective).
I use, within my abilities, observation, reasoning and intuition to differentiate between artificial and natural moral laws.
I know by the use of these tools, that some persons will agree with me, and some will not.
I realize that one meaning of objectivity requires that I be able convince the majority of other interested individuals that I am correct. I should be able to hold proof in front of them to bring them to my side. I rather believe that objectivity is an individual making direct connection with reality. Many scientific observations or reasoning were counter to accepted beliefs, and seemed to be subjective until enough time passed to allow proper demonstration of their validity. I believe their observations were objective, even when they were alone in their beliefs, and could not convince others.
Either this, or we would say their subjective observations lead to objective truths. In such a case, do they ever attain objective observation, or are observations always subjective? If they do attain objectivity, when does this change occur? Does it require a majority vote to demonstrate objectivity? Does majority vote always reveal objectivity?
As I said in a different post, I do not take the natural moral laws to be as narrow or limited as those who follow the moral laws of sacred texts. Extenuating circumstances will contribute to what the correct action should be.
The natural moral laws are absolute in that given a certain set of circumstances where a certain course of action is moral or immoral, under the same circumstances that action will always be correct or incorrect.
In some situations cultural norms may be relevant, as they contribute to the extenuating circumstance. I can’t think of a case where this is true, but it seems it easily could be.
In most situations cultural norms are irrelevant.
At every fork in the road of individual human behavior, actions will be moral, immoral, or neutral. The determination of what I need to do to act morally is not based on what my culture accepts or rejects. The standard I choose should be natural, and comply with universal or absolute standards or laws. I have to have faith in my own abilities to make the right choice. Reflections on what I did or did not do will guide and reinforce my beliefs.
In many cases these decisions will need to be made immediately, with no time for observation or reasoning, and I will rely on intuition, seasoned with related observations and reasoning.
It is enough for me to believe that I have an objective understanding of natural moral laws. I do not feel a need to convince others to share my beliefs, unless of course I feel threatened by their artificial moral laws.
