Comment on Multi-culturism by sacredcow

Parent Post: Multi-culturism · In Reply To

sacredcow · 7/12/2026, 3:15:44 PM · permalink

22 bumps

dickie · 7/13/2026, 4:05:56 AM · permalink

You are proving my point. If Natural Law is just “good words smart humans wrote down so we could have a society,” then it is not a law of nature. It is a human moral theory, written and interpreted by fallible humans, exactly like every other political and religious doctrine.

Natural-law thinking predates Christianity, but Christianity absorbed it and gave it divine authority. The Stoics and Roman philosophers argued for a universal moral order rooted in nature and reason. Aquinas later made natural law explicitly part of God’s eternal law. The modern non-aggression principle is much newer and comes mainly from libertarian political philosophy, not from an ancient universal consensus.

I do not believe every statement in the Bible must be literally true, and I do not need biblical inerrancy to judge a moral teaching. My reference to Jesus was about the standard attributed to him: reject worldly power, refuse retaliation, associate voluntarily and do not compel belief. Saying he was the only person who ever met that standard was rhetorical, not a provable historical claim.

But questioning the Bible does not rescue Natural Law. You are still asking people to accept an objective moral authority that cannot be physically observed and whose meaning must be interpreted by humans. You can call it nature instead of God, but the structural problem remains.

The NAP is more defensible because it is openly a chosen ethical rule: do not initiate force. It does not need to pretend the universe wrote it down. Even then, humans will still argue over what counts as aggression, ownership, consent and self-defense.

So yes, government is a fallible human construct. So are churches, Natural Law and libertarian philosophy. The label does not eliminate the humans.

20 bumps

sacredcow · 7/13/2026, 11:20:37 AM · permalink

18 bumps

dickie · 7/14/2026, 8:45:11 AM · permalink

16 bumps

sacredcow · 7/14/2026, 11:16:17 AM · permalink

13 bumps

dickie · 7/15/2026, 4:34:40 AM · permalink

You are arguing with religious beliefs I have never stated. You know only that I follow Jesus. You do not know whether I believe the Bible is literal, inerrant or dictated by God, so most of those questions are aimed at a Christianity you invented for me.

Nothing about “do not lie, cheat, steal or murder” bothers me. What I reject is pretending those rules are objective laws of nature. Natural Law is neither natural nor law. It is a human moral theory.

Your morality is also narrowly human-centered. You keep talking about duties toward humans as though nature recognizes a special moral category called “human rights.” It does not. Humans are animals, and rights are constructs humans create and enforce.

The NAP also stops being simple as soon as real cases appear. Who owns the last seat in a lifeboat? At what age can someone meaningfully consent? Is pollution aggression? Is neglect aggression? What level of threat justifies force? What counts as legitimate property in the first place?

Saying lying, theft and murder are generally destructive is reasonable. Saying disagreement means I enjoy those things is just moral grandstanding. You are still taking your preferred values, giving them an authoritative label and suggesting anyone who questions the label must be immoral.

11 bumps

sacredcow · 7/15/2026, 8:21:38 AM · permalink

If you have never stated them, why are you here arguing?  
Arguing about what?  
  
Natural law and the NAP are good words of wisdom to live your life by.  
Or go rob, cheat and steal.  
Or go be a "good" person cause some god promises you streets of gold.  
  
Do you dog.  
  
It seems you want a perfect system to tell you who gets the last seat on a life boat.  
No system is perfect.  
Good luck with figuring life out.  
  
![image](https://us-lax-1.linodeobjects.com/sojooo/comments/2364/1784103698305-2799694fc8801c39.png)
Natural law is how these things have been described over human history.  
  
I guess lying, cheating, stealing and murdering is "natural" to you since you said none of these things are natural or a law.  
Just "morals".  
Yep, these are things I choose to do.  
If you don't, I choose not to interact with you.  
  
You want me to answer what threat level justifies force?  
I don't know every interaction between every human to define such a thing.  
  
Many of these "gotcha" questions have to have more information behind them for ME to make an informed decision.  
OTHER humans may make other decisions about those instances.  
  
Having a good moral frame work such as the NAP and Natural law to guide you through life helps.  
Life isn't easy.  
Life will have you make very tough choices some times.  
  
Lots of people think "might" makes right.  
Shit happens.  
  
Nothing about the NAP or Natural Law says life will be perfect or easy.  
Basically they say, don't fuck people over and life maybe just a bit easier for you.  
MAYBE easier for you...

10 bumps

dickie · 7/15/2026, 11:12:17 AM · permalink

I am arguing because you keep calling a personal moral preference “Natural Law” and then treating criticism of the label as support for lying, theft and murder. That is a dishonest false choice.

Calling it Natural Law is itself false. It is not natural, because nature contains cooperation, deception, theft, killing, parasitism and domination. It is not law, because there is no objective authority, consistent definition or universal enforcement behind it. It pretends something exists outside human judgment when it does not.

The lifeboat, consent and aggression questions are not “gotchas.” They test whether the principle actually resolves difficult cases. Your answer is that you need more information and other people may decide differently. Exactly. That means it is human judgment, not an objective natural law.

You also keep retreating between two different claims. First, Natural Law and the NAP should govern human conduct. Then, when challenged, they are merely “good words” that might make life easier. Fine. “Try not to fuck people over” is useful advice. It is not a law of nature.

I do not need a perfect system, a promise of streets of gold or a threat of hell to avoid robbing people. You invented that argument because it is easier than addressing mine.

And spare me the libertarian lecture. I am probably more libertarian in practice than you are. I do not send my children to public school. I do not take government handouts. I have never chosen to live in, or buy property in, a town with zoning in the last 20 years. I have structured major parts of my life around avoiding state control rather than merely posting slogans about freedom.

The difference is that I do not pretend my choices were dictated by the universe. They are my values, my judgments and my responsibility. Calling your values “Natural Law” only disguises human opinion as something objective.

8 bumps

sacredcow · 7/15/2026, 12:07:05 PM · permalink

2 bumps

sacredcow · 7/15/2026, 12:36:02 PM · permalink

2 bumps

sacredcow · 7/15/2026, 12:40:22 PM · permalink

2 bumps

sacredcow · 7/14/2026, 1:02:12 PM · permalink

1 bump

sacredcow · 7/14/2026, 11:31:17 AM · permalink

1 bump

Signature