Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Stating up front that I basically agree with your position on both the convenient selective usage of a term like ”natural law” and the agenda of this article...I’m still somewhat philosophically interested in the concept of natural law.
The US Constitution pretty much derives it’s moral authority from the concept, “we hold these truths to be self-evident.” Isn’t that essentially a natural law argument?
Absolutely, but they fell at the very first hurdle didn't they?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Perhaps if they had added, unless they are Black or female at the end.
They were fine words, but words is what they were, they were mainly slave owners and they either didn't believe what they wrote or didn't believe slaves were men, and women are conspicuous by their absence both in the use of the word "men" rather than people and in the signatories.
They were men of their times, but trying to state that the Declaration of Independence was stating natural law is rather let down by the reality of the signatories' actions.
The only thing that I can think of that I could make a claim for is rape in modern western countries, that is illegal even within marriage now and is seen as always wrong, even on a battlefield, although I imagine that would last all of 5 minutes in a real life or death war.
And there my argument for rape being against natural law currently moves on to shaky ground.
And historically it was seen as a legitimate act of war and very recently impossible within marriage.
They aren't so much natural laws as a wish list of things we'd like our society to aspire to.