Santorum says electing Cruz will lead to "Polygamy"

[TJ in Oregon]

Is it possible for something to be against "natural law" but nevertheless is good public policy? Could SSM be against natural law, even if empirically based on the data it did no harm to anyone, or to society, while making gays happier and more productive citizens? Suppose the data showed that gays getting marriage, caused heterosexual marriages to become more successful? Is what the contents of natural law is, ever subject to change based on anything, ever? Is the invocation of natural law when it comes to public policy, anything more than merely a vehicle to legitimatize non data based decision making?

Sure, I suppose one might argue, that in the absence of data, the default position is to fall back on natural law. That would be unfortunate if the result, were that it interfered with trying something out on a limited, experimental basis to try to collect some data. It would effectively foreclose exploring options in a prudent manner that might make human society better, and the planet a better place in which to live.

Am I making any sense here?

From this post, I think you misunderstand what natural law is. Natural law is based on the idea that humans have natures (certain rights and virtues intrinsic to their humanity) and that morality is based on perfecting these virtues. Like most moral systems, data can be used to guide decision making. However, what varies from system to system is the questions one asks when looking at data and the response made from the data. Adjudicating a proposed idea according to natural law is different from consequentialism in that we care not only about the outcome but also the means and intentions for the process along the way.*

For example, if a study came out that said children who were spanked are less likely to use drugs when they grow up, both adherents of natural law and consequentialism would then conclude we should spank children. However, if instead a study came out saying (hypothetically) that children that were selectively bred  and inserted into their surrogate mothers via IV fertilization are less likely to use drugs when they grow up, consequentialists may be ok with that approach, but those who hold natural law would say that the proposal is wrong, not because of the end outcome but because selective breeding of humans is against natural law.

I suppose one might say that natural law is making a lot of "extra" assumptions about what human virtue should look like. But when you try to decide what a "good" or "bad" outcome is you're already making assumptions about what human virtue should look like. Essentially, the disagreement if argued effectively, is not about what data says will happen if we do X and instead about what is good, be it an ends or a means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It depends what you mean by "against natural law" and "good public policy". If by "good public policy" you mean lead to outcomes you deem favorable, then yes of course it can (see above). There's also another important scenario to consider and that's when the government isn't actively doing anything against natural law, but is instead choosing not to act against a violation of natural law. Here there is much more latitude for prudence. While in some abstract utopian world it may be better if some violation of natural law is illegal, it does not follow that there is a good law that can actually be written in ours outlawing it, or that such a law wouldn't have other effects that cannot be ignored.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes. See above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This something of a debate between different people who subscribe to natural law. I would argue the answer is no, however, since natural law is based on human nature and I don't think human nature changes over time. It is possible that we don't fully understand some aspect of it, though, and will come to understand it better later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In theory it should be mostly neutral to the use of data in decision making. In practice, it's only mentioned when discussing gay marriage and most of the people using the argument don't understand what natural law even means.

*The version of natural law I describe here is in accordance with virtue ethics. There are somewhat different constructions that others have described for deontological ethical systems.

[Torie]

Thanks TJ. That was very helpful. Your post belongs in the good post gallery on FC. This is Atlas at its best. I very much appreciate the time that you took to respond.

I am still not going to let natural law get in the way of data based decision making. Obviously there is some sort of moral construct involved about what the ends should be, and the means to get there. But I don't think thinking about what is "natural" about humans is very helpful in fashioning such constructs, although it certainly is not irrelevant. What makes humans happy, and productive, and gives their lives meaning, has something to do with their nature. But that too is somewhat data based. We are still learning about human nature, and how we tick. We have learned a lot about drug addiction for example, from a biological perspective. Psychosis too, although we have a long, long way to go on that one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ah, a data based argument, or at least susceptible to data based testing! Very good! The claim is that hetero marriages are going down the tubes now that gays can do it. Now all we need is the data, to see if there is any time line connection between the two (that does not necessarily mean causation, but hey it's a start). And voila, I found something! Fancy that. Hard to image that heteros are not changing their life decisions based on what gays are doing, other than sometimes taking cues from them in fashion or whatever, but this planet is just full of surprises. Now the question is whether gay marriages are causing heteros to be more interested in marriage maintenance. Probably not, because as I said, time line correlations do not necessarily imply casual connections.

That's not the question at all.  The decline in heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals, period. 

For the record, and as a Christian, my opposition to SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", or what it might do to my marriage, etc.  That stuff is all nonsense.  I oppose it because of what Scripture says about sexual activity.  I consider SSM to be an affront to God.  If folks disagree with that, I understand, but I base my position on Scripture, and while there may be a humanistic argument against my position, there is not a Scriptural argument that holds water.  I have respect for folks who wish to argue that the Bible is a bunch of horse manure and Christians believe in fairy tales.  I don't have much respect for folks who quote Scripture as authoritative when it supports them and avoid it when it doesn't.  The Bible either is the inspired Word of God, or it's just another self-help book that can be easily blown off.

[Torie]

Ah, a data based argument, or at least susceptible to data based testing! Very good! The claim is that hetero marriages are going down the tubes now that gays can do it. Now all we need is the data, to see if there is any time line connection between the two (that does not necessarily mean causation, but hey it's a start). And voila, I found something! Fancy that. Hard to image that heteros are not changing their life decisions based on what gays are doing, other than sometimes taking cues from them in fashion or whatever, but this planet is just full of surprises. Now the question is whether gay marriages are causing heteros to be more interested in marriage maintenance. Probably not, because as I said, time line correlations do not necessarily imply casual connections.

That's not the question at all.  The decline in heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals, period.  

For the record, and as a Christian, my opposition to SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", or what it might do to my marriage, etc.  That stuff is all nonsense.  I oppose it because of what Scripture says about sexual activity.  I consider SSM to be an affront to God.  If folks disagree with that, I understand, but I base my position on Scripture, and while there may be a humanistic argument against my position, there is not a Scriptural argument that holds water.  I have respect for folks who wish to argue that the Bible is a bunch of horse manure and Christians believe in fairy tales.  I don't have much respect for folks who quote Scripture as authoritative when it supports them and avoid it when it doesn't.  The Bible either is the inspired Word of God, or it's just another self-help book that can be easily blown off.

I understand, and given your leap of faith, the discussion comes to an end. It is sort of like the abortion issue. If you think from the moment of conception that the zygote is a human being, with all of the rights associated with that, the discussion is at an end. It is not that one is right objectively and the other wrong. It is just that the assumptions made, based upon subjectivity, result in there being no way to bridge the gap based on reason.

[couchpotato07]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

I totally agree with you!

[Phony Moderate]

Actual radical leftists of course would reject the institution of marriage as vile, conservative and patriarchal. The fact that the gay community is so enthusiastic about it nowadays shows the extent to which the community has moderated and mainstreamed in the past decade or two.

[couchpotato07]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

I totally agree with you!

And I second that!

[Fuzzy Bear]

Ah, a data based argument, or at least susceptible to data based testing! Very good! The claim is that hetero marriages are going down the tubes now that gays can do it. Now all we need is the data, to see if there is any time line connection between the two (that does not necessarily mean causation, but hey it's a start). And voila, I found something! Fancy that. Hard to image that heteros are not changing their life decisions based on what gays are doing, other than sometimes taking cues from them in fashion or whatever, but this planet is just full of surprises. Now the question is whether gay marriages are causing heteros to be more interested in marriage maintenance. Probably not, because as I said, time line correlations do not necessarily imply casual connections.

That's not the question at all.  The decline in heterosexual marriage has nothing to do with homosexuals, period.  

For the record, and as a Christian, my opposition to SSM has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", or what it might do to my marriage, etc.  That stuff is all nonsense.  I oppose it because of what Scripture says about sexual activity.  I consider SSM to be an affront to God.  If folks disagree with that, I understand, but I base my position on Scripture, and while there may be a humanistic argument against my position, there is not a Scriptural argument that holds water.  I have respect for folks who wish to argue that the Bible is a bunch of horse manure and Christians believe in fairy tales.  I don't have much respect for folks who quote Scripture as authoritative when it supports them and avoid it when it doesn't.  The Bible either is the inspired Word of God, or it's just another self-help book that can be easily blown off.

I understand, and given your leap of faith, the discussion comes to an end. It is sort of like the abortion issue. If you think from the moment of conception that the zygote is a human being, with all of the rights associated with that, the discussion is at an end. It is not that one is right objectively and the other wrong. It is just that the assumptions made, based upon subjectivity, result in there being no way to bridge the gap based on reason.

The underlined is very true.  I don't consider that a bad thing, btw.  I do believe, on Faith, things that others here may not.

There are many areas where folks like me could come to agreement with secular liberals, even as we would disagree on many social issues that, from my point of view, are Biblically driven.  I would like it if both sides could recognize this a bit more.  Such cooperation might require a change of heart on the part of some religious folks, who tend toward political rants about liberals, rather than spreading the Gospel, but it would also require some liberals to consider what folks like me believe Christ requires of them. 

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

I totally agree with you!

And I second that!

Did you just second yourself?

[This account no longer in use.]

Marriage is one man, one woman.  Gay people have been getting traditional marriages for eons, and having kids.  That is wonderful, if they choose to do so.  But now we have this radical, leftist cultural shift that started in the 90s, that says we have to accept new definitions to accommodate everyone, lest we hurt someone's feelings!  Once that starts, look out.  Pretty soon, what was once unthinkable becomes law, no matter what the people say or what natural law says. 

I totally agree with you!

And I second that!

Did you just second yourself?

Considering they both have the number "07" at the end of their names, as well as the fact that they seem to use the same grammar, I'd definitely guess that this is a sock.

[Bojack Horseman]

When did marriage become a prerequisite for procreation?

[Fuzzy Bear]

When did marriage become a prerequisite for procreation?

The day God ordained the family.  That's when.

That many folks blow this off is . . . well . . . on them.