I’m just going by what “is”, not what I “want”. What I want is unrelated.

I’m just going by what “is”, not what I “want”.
What I want is unrelated.

natural law is arbitrary because it is declared “self-evident”.
That is: no proof or justification is required. One simply states: Thus is so. And it is.
That’s what makes it arbitrary. Thankfully, those that historically talked about “natural law” were talking about things that were mostly uncontroversial: all men are created equal, etc.
 —
almost and as if, yes.
That means it’s a logical “IS NOT”.
To rewrite accurately:
Natural law is not implicitly known and cannot be used to reason through a case.
—-
  • “should be”.
    But when something is declared as “natural law” and reality does not match up to what is purposed to be “natural law”, then perhaps it is not “natural law” at all.
    That is my point.
    ===

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five − = 0

Leave a Reply