The script to this video is part of... - The Philosophy of Religion Part II eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe2 - The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Fantastic video, but I couldn’t help but laugh at the end when he asked the most structured question and the guy on the right said “welp, we’re out of time”
Best way to avoid a tough question :) But honestly, we have to draw a line, otherwise the debate will go on for hours. Thank you though, glad you liked it.
@@maq739 We can't prove God exists but Nature is a fact. So does Nature possess these principles, and if so we (being part of Nature) inherently and intuitively sense them also?
This Question definitely deserved an answer so I will for my insight. The principles of hermeticism which some think derive from ancient Egyptian philosophers builds on this concept of Natural Law by listing 7 different phenomenon that seem to act as “Enforcers” of the Law (for lack of a better word). Mentalism (everything is created through thought), Cause & Effect (includes Karma), Vibration, Rhythm, Polarity to name a few. As a libertarian I always leaned towards natural law but never new it to be the truest Law until I heard it explained in Mark Passio’s Natural Law Seminar. It shows why God isn’t necessarily needed to understand Objective Morality while also proving God exists by showing you the machinations of the Universe. Progress is Key.
Maybe the primary precepts like life, reproduction, education, justice and worship are such obvious goods that even if a person doesn’t recognize God, that person can still hold natural law by pure reason. I think at least first 4 primary precepts are pretty universally agreed as good things that human wants in life. Totus tuus
This was great. Everyone in the class gave it a thumbs-up. Although it is a new class, and I'm not sure how honest they are. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it, so thanks.
You don't have to believe in God to be subject to Natural Law. We all know in our heart and mind that intentionally killing or harming others is wrong even if we do it. The consequences of doing these type of evil come back to haunt our consciences no matter how hard we try to evade them. Some may even celebrate their wrongdoing because they 'double down' in their crime rather than admitting their wrong and seeking atonement, but they do this because their conscience won't leave them in peace. However it is much easier to understand and appreciate Natural Law if you do believe in God. The Natural Law is elucidated through the ten commandments and elsewhere in the the bible and let's face it, we all need pointers and support to understand better these laws. Also without God it is harder to keep hold of Natural Law. If we don't have a creator who created a world that shows design and purpose, then the concept of Natural Law, although recognised by all, becomes vaguer and easier to discard when it suits us.
I agree with what you said. I would take it a step further though and say while you don’t have to believe in God, having that influence will help you navigate through natural law.
@@kengineexpress I agree. I do believe in God. My original response was just to say that it is possible to believe in Natural Law without God but that belief in God makes the understanding and practice of Natural Law eminently more sensible and sustainable.
natural moral law needs you to belive in god, furthermore you need god in natural moral law as these are set by him for all humans to follow; meaning that without god then natural moral law is just a subjective, absolutist ethical idea created by humans
Good video, to answer the last question, i argue philosopher Hubbard in his articles on ethics added on a good explanation that can answer that question without needing God. If we look at natural law we are seeing all the main pillars fall upon the idea we are attempting to survive and survive to the most we can and improving the survival of the human race and the most individuals within it. So if we can define good as trying to promote the most survival for the most people and people innately are trying to survive and be good promoting the survival of others than you don't need god to be the center of good and natural law.
If YOU deny god then it is on you to say where morality comes from. Everyone dodges this. Eventually you get to a creator. You do not have to believe he is benevolent or that he wants worship, but it seems clear. Where does math or logic come from?
As a moral anti-realist I think that morality is constructed, not truth apt and grounded in minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being. Math and logic are abstract concepts that were constructed by us and require minds to make sense of. They are “real” in so far as we can perceive them in our minds (dependent on the brain), but they do not exist objectively.
@@kimmyswan this is a contradiction because mathematics require the existence of logical absolute truths. You cannot say the essences of things are dependent in material arrangement since they cannot be objectively separated one form another, nor subjectively since the subject does not exist. You have a material continuum and only once substance exist matter, which is the consequence of a materialistic framework, in direct contradiction to empirical reality. Saying morality is must be based in hedonism is a reprobate thought and has no basis for justice (another absolute), because not everybody finds pleasure in the same things or with the same intensity. A masochist would find pleasurable to be beaten and would find laws that allow for battering morally permissible, but probably you would not and would say beating someone is immoral.
YES! Natural Law is summarized in JESUS teaching: LOVE OTHERS as you Love yourself. Then any act knowingly done to hurt others in any way goes contrary to this law. To complement this law is NEWTON's law of Cause & Effect: To any cause there is an effect..... This is further explained by the concept of KARMA and why our world is suffering so much; because all acts against the Natural Law of LOVE will have its effect in an opposite direction: PAIN. Thanks for your video. Truly helpful!
I don't really like how the video cuts out at the most interesting part rather than exploring the concepts and apologetics for each side. I don't know if its due to laziness, neglect, or simple time constraints (which begs the question why would one want to limit ones self with time when exploring the most intricate and complicated questions of man?) but I did find an answer I do see as being sufficient to answer the question of the skeptic. Negative morality is exceptionless due to morals being full reasonableness. Therefore it is not logical that somebody could be in a dilemma where all choice equals an immoral choice through no fault of ones own. Rather, it is possible that due to previous choice one can lead himself into a situation where he holds irreconcilable duties in which no matter what he chooses will violate natural law. It is a qualified and derivative dilemma one that is the end result of decision that took place in the past.
Hello, thank you for the inquiry into the Philosophy Vibe book. We have taken the website down and just hosting our videos on RUclips, but the book is still available, you can get the hardback from Lulu: www.lulu.com/gb/en/shop/charles-georgiou/does-god-exist-a-philosophical-inquiry/paperback/product-23370512.html And the Ebook can be found on Amazon: www.amazon.co.uk/Does-God-Exist-Philosophical-Inquiry-ebook/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Hope you enjoy!!!
I think there is a bit of confusion on the question of what is absolute. What is absolute, is that a right action for each situation exists, regardless of what a particular person feels is right. This has nothing to do with the right action changing based on the situation (killing for fun vs. in self-defense). It is also irrelevant whether we can figure out the right action for a particular situation. All that is needed for the absolutist view is for a right action to exist. Let me know if I am missing something.
Yes there is a right action for every situation, but one's guilt or innocence depends on one's: knowledge, freedom and the gravity of the sin. It is not irrelevant whether you can work out what is right or wrong. If you do a wrong without knowing it, you are less guilty than if you knew. But having the knowledge and therefore not making the bad action will be better than not knowing and doing a bad action. This is why it is a virtue to be intelligent. There are also unintended sins, which also accrue less guilt- for example manslaughter rather than murder. The Catholic Church has worked all this out, which modern secularism ignores at its own peril.
It's a good video that outlines Aquinas' failed presumptions. It could be that Aquinas does not know that logic and reason can justify insane arguments. And whose God is one to use to explain the treatment of your fellow man?
Imagine you are driving a car with a malfunction brake and with a speed of 120 km/h. In the distance, you spot some students who are crossing the pedestrian lane. Even if they do spot your car coming, they won’t be able to react and avoid the collision in time. When you realize what is going to happen, you observe that there are four students on the right lane of the road and there is only one student on the left lane of the road. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa? A. In the light of Natural Law Ethics, lists at least five things that you want to consider in this kind of situation before you decide and act. It must be in order according to importance/significance. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Etc. B. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa? Present your arguments/reasons. Minimum of 3 arguments. 1. 2. 3. C. Is your decision and/or action morally justifiable? Explain, elaborate, or expound your answer? Note: Again, understand the situation and the questions based on the standpoint of Natural Law Ethics.
If you actually followed Natural Law Ethics, you would know better to ignore signs that are laid out before each of its students on a continual basis. God is father. God is not some abstract thought in the sky. Part of the Law is the relationship that is guaranteed. This relationship is constant conversation. If you have a faulty car, why drive it in the first place? If it has faulty brakes, why are you going that fast? Also... knowing all these factors, why be in a zone frequented by walking pedestrians? Like a school zone? A good student of Natural Laws would be contemplative at all times and empathic. Which means you always think before you do. The owner of this car sounds like a careless criminal...so their choices reflect that. There is no emergency on earth that can compel a human to just get in a car and start driving at that speed right into oncoming pedestrians without prior knowledge of the ramifications. If your car all of a sudden cannot stop, you drive it into something, not people. Natural Law, when practiced the way it is Divinely Designed, teaches one to live anticipatorily prepared. We have been so distracted away from it we are using old logic to defend current missteps. That's oxymoronic and also blind. That's like asking a vegan to describe the Spiritual Laws of Veganism, after forcing them to eat a steak. The answer will be contaminated and distorted. That is what life is like on Earth right now. No accord, a lot of excuses.
Response is a year later, but I love your take on this. Instead of answering the question, you flip it USING the concept of natural law and awareness. Live accordingly and bind by the rules.@@tamikkowillis7285
From my opinion i can say, Murder is wrong because it's not us as human beings who did give the life so we don't have any right to take what is not our. And so on.....
The KJV Bible mis-transliterate/mis-interprates murder to killing. They refer to murder or unjustified killing. By definition murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought. If the killing of a person is to protect one's life, or to preserve lives then it isn't unlawful or unjustified. ".... to the misconception (and the mistranslation) of the Sixth Commandment [in Exodus 20:13], ‘You shall not murder,’ as ‘You shall not kill.’ The original Hebrew, lo tirtsah., is very clear, since the verb ratsah. means ‘murder,’ not ‘kill.’ If the commandment proscribed killing as such, it would position Judaism against capital punishment and make it pacifist even in wartime. These may be defensible or admirable views, but they’re certainly not biblical.” Only an idiot would think natural law or the Bible means killing another human is never justified. If it did half the key characters in it would be destined to Hell.
the KJV actually doesn't mistranslate this back in 1610 the English word "kill" just meant "murder" but wouldn't you know English has changed a bit since 1610 and now we would make a distinction between murder and kill
I thought it was blasphemy when you depict God in a picture, as was done in the video? Also, none of Jesus' followers had the artistic ability to draw Him and none were literate enough to take notes? Yet we have paintings from the renaissance period and the Gospels reporting verbatim what Jesus said. I consider Aquinas to be the Machiavelli of Christianity. You can use the argument that you are pursuing the greater good to justify wars against an "evil" enemy,.
@@dinosconstantinou4115 you assume that a tax collector was illiterate? How would that work? Also, the no depiction thing (iconography) is mostly an Islam thing, not Christian. Much of the modern bible, Romans, Ephesians, etc. are collections of correspondence, pretty hard to write letters, if you can't read. Your comment clearly comes from a position of prideful ignorance. Beware the fall.
@@darcevader4146 False dilemma. Not being a slave does not imply unscrupulousness (doing what I please, nor irresponsibly succumbing to my "own lustful desires" without regard for others or myself). It simply implies that morality is not a matter of blind or submissive obedience to anyone.
You call them lustful desires, but they are all YOUR lustful desires. You were born with them and they're an innate part of you. Just like with everyone else really. This is why Nietzche thought false piety and acting like you're a person with no lustful desires was pretentious. It's the same with why many people dislike those Christians who preach modesty, humbleness etc, but they're all backstabbing each other in their religious sects. Just read up some stories by people that have left religion and you will see. We basically know absolutely nothing, so there's no need to discuss further really.
There is still a law governing this situation. One cannot just unplug someone because they think there are no signs of recovery. This scenario is built on a faulty premise. Unplugging the man is simply illegal. I am curious with exploring moral dilemmas, but this is actually a legal dilemma. Unplug the man, save 3 lives... okay but the decider is still facing legal ramifications that he or she will need to account for and most likely face sentencing. The law is still functioning.
this actually happened with COVID in mexico doctors were deciding who had the better chance of survival and that's how patients will get into a vent and the others will stay without one and go into respiratory failure just because they didn't have enough vents.
05:50 why would anyone want to violate the moral laws when they know its good for them? Hi my name is Original Sin, I’m a defect in the human soul due to lack of God’s sanctifying grace from birth. I darken and weaken human intellect and human will thus the humans tend to choose lesser goods and cave to bodily desires thus breaking the natural laws. I’ll be around for the entire human existence in this life but you can try to control me by practicing virtues. God will also help you mainly through the sacraments like baptism. Totus tuus
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLE: an immoral act (unplugging the man in a coma) never justifies a moral outcome (saving the other three patients). Christianity believes that your soul is more important than life itself
Aquinas andAustine , o anong ginagawa ninyo dyan sa forte ng Natural Law, gusto mo na naman isingit si Divine Law... Ayos na yung Suma Theologia at Meta Physics, hanngang don lang ang puwede...
I disagree with both Objective Moral Laws " can still exist, does not matter if you believe in God or not The dilemma doesn't take into account "Individual Rights that come with Natural Moral Law theory So, no...you do NOT unplug the man in a coma No action is needed , this no law was broken
Ah.. natural law wouldn't allow you to save them 3?? That coercion. The other 3 die from bad luck aka probability. The moral thing to do would be, to do nothing.
"this feels more like a consequentialist theory rather than an absolutist one I see and finally what good is the natural law theory if you do not believe in God you can argue that God has created natural laws for humans and that our moral laws are created within nature but if we reject the whole concept of God and deny he exists and where does that leave natural law as the whole theory relies on God this theory can only appeal to religious people no one else really has a reason to adopt this" " if we reject the whole concept of God" The weakness in this argument is the "we". Who cares how many individuals reject the truth of reality it and they still have not disproven the initial claim that God determines what is true/beautiful/good/moral/virtuous because God "IS" all these things buy His very nature. God "IS" the very essence of all reality and not a competing being in space & time like the Greek gods or Dawkins "spaghetti monster" which are competing beings in space and time.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The script to this video is part of...
- The Philosophy of Religion Part II eBook, available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe2
- The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology Vol 1 'Philosophy of Religion' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Being a monk his philosophy attribute things to a deity, falsely. Summation of Natural Law is Self-Preservation.
Fantastic video, but I couldn’t help but laugh at the end when he asked the most structured question and the guy on the right said “welp, we’re out of time”
Best way to avoid a tough question :) But honestly, we have to draw a line, otherwise the debate will go on for hours. Thank you though, glad you liked it.
@@PhilosophyVibe but that question really deserved a structured answer
@@maq739 We can't prove God exists but Nature is a fact. So does Nature possess these principles, and if so we (being part of Nature) inherently and intuitively sense them also?
This Question definitely deserved an answer so I will for my insight. The principles of hermeticism which some think derive from ancient Egyptian philosophers builds on this concept of Natural Law by listing 7 different phenomenon that seem to act as “Enforcers” of the Law (for lack of a better word). Mentalism (everything is created through thought), Cause & Effect (includes Karma), Vibration, Rhythm, Polarity to name a few. As a libertarian I always leaned towards natural law but never new it to be the truest Law until I heard it explained in Mark Passio’s Natural Law Seminar. It shows why God isn’t necessarily needed to understand Objective Morality while also proving God exists by showing you the machinations of the Universe. Progress is Key.
Maybe the primary precepts like life, reproduction, education, justice and worship are such obvious goods that even if a person doesn’t recognize God, that person can still hold natural law by pure reason. I think at least first 4 primary precepts are pretty universally agreed as good things that human wants in life.
Totus tuus
Thank you sir.
You're welcome 😀
I'd like to offer that the reason I couldn't get anything from this video is the sound quality
This was great. Everyone in the class gave it a thumbs-up. Although it is a new class, and I'm not sure how honest they are. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it, so thanks.
Thank you!
You don't have to believe in God to be subject to Natural Law. We all know in our heart and mind that intentionally killing or harming others is wrong even if we do it. The consequences of doing these type of evil come back to haunt our consciences no matter how hard we try to evade them. Some may even celebrate their wrongdoing because they 'double down' in their crime rather than admitting their wrong and seeking atonement, but they do this because their conscience won't leave them in peace.
However it is much easier to understand and appreciate Natural Law if you do believe in God. The Natural Law is elucidated through the ten commandments and elsewhere in the the bible and let's face it, we all need pointers and support to understand better these laws. Also without God it is harder to keep hold of Natural Law. If we don't have a creator who created a world that shows design and purpose, then the concept of Natural Law, although recognised by all, becomes vaguer and easier to discard when it suits us.
You do have to believe in god in order to agree with natural law. It’s one of the precepts.
I agree with what you said. I would take it a step further though and say while you don’t have to believe in God, having that influence will help you navigate through natural law.
@@kengineexpress I agree. I do believe in God. My original response was just to say that it is possible to believe in Natural Law without God but that belief in God makes the understanding and practice of Natural Law eminently more sensible and sustainable.
"Esti Deus non Daretur"
natural moral law needs you to belive in god, furthermore you need god in natural moral law as these are set by him for all humans to follow; meaning that without god then natural moral law is just a subjective, absolutist ethical idea created by humans
Thank you so much ❤️
Pleasure glad we could help.
The law of nature is the instinct that makes us feel fair
thankyou for writing my essay
Pleasure :)
Good video, to answer the last question, i argue philosopher Hubbard in his articles on ethics added on a good explanation that can answer that question without needing God.
If we look at natural law we are seeing all the main pillars fall upon the idea we are attempting to survive and survive to the most we can and improving the survival of the human race and the most individuals within it.
So if we can define good as trying to promote the most survival for the most people and people innately are trying to survive and be good promoting the survival of others than you don't need god to be the center of good and natural law.
What is the difference between natural law and moral law?
Natural law theory is an ethical theory. It is an explanation, under the premise of moral realism, for the purported existence of moral laws.
If YOU deny god then it is on you to say where morality comes from. Everyone dodges this. Eventually you get to a creator. You do not have to believe he is benevolent or that he wants worship, but it seems clear. Where does math or logic come from?
As a moral anti-realist I think that morality is constructed, not truth apt and grounded in minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being. Math and logic are abstract concepts that were constructed by us and require minds to make sense of. They are “real” in so far as we can perceive them in our minds (dependent on the brain), but they do not exist objectively.
@@kimmyswan this is a contradiction because mathematics require the existence of logical absolute truths. You cannot say the essences of things are dependent in material arrangement since they cannot be objectively separated one form another, nor subjectively since the subject does not exist. You have a material continuum and only once substance exist matter, which is the consequence of a materialistic framework, in direct contradiction to empirical reality. Saying morality is must be based in hedonism is a reprobate thought and has no basis for justice (another absolute), because not everybody finds pleasure in the same things or with the same intensity. A masochist would find pleasurable to be beaten and would find laws that allow for battering morally permissible, but probably you would not and would say beating someone is immoral.
YES! Natural Law is summarized in JESUS teaching: LOVE OTHERS as you Love yourself. Then any act knowingly done to hurt others in any way goes contrary to this law. To complement this law is NEWTON's law of Cause & Effect: To any cause there is an effect..... This is further explained by the concept of KARMA and why our world is suffering so much; because all acts against the Natural Law of LOVE will have its effect in an opposite direction: PAIN. Thanks for your video. Truly helpful!
I don't really like how the video cuts out at the most interesting part rather than exploring the concepts and apologetics for each side. I don't know if its due to laziness, neglect, or simple time constraints (which begs the question why would one want to limit ones self with time when exploring the most intricate and complicated questions of man?) but I did find an answer I do see as being sufficient to answer the question of the skeptic. Negative morality is exceptionless due to morals being full reasonableness. Therefore it is not logical that somebody could be in a dilemma where all choice equals an immoral choice through no fault of ones own. Rather, it is possible that due to previous choice one can lead himself into a situation where he holds irreconcilable duties in which no matter what he chooses will violate natural law. It is a qualified and derivative dilemma one that is the end result of decision that took place in the past.
Thank you.. It's really helpful..but how is natural law.. An absolute law?
Volume issues
Guys what is your new website? I am interested in buying the ebook. Can I find it on Amazon? thx
Hello, thank you for the inquiry into the Philosophy Vibe book. We have taken the website down and just hosting our videos on RUclips, but the book is still available, you can get the hardback from Lulu: www.lulu.com/gb/en/shop/charles-georgiou/does-god-exist-a-philosophical-inquiry/paperback/product-23370512.html
And the Ebook can be found on Amazon:
www.amazon.co.uk/Does-God-Exist-Philosophical-Inquiry-ebook/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Hope you enjoy!!!
Can anyone tell what are the examples?
I think there is a bit of confusion on the question of what is absolute. What is absolute, is that a right action for each situation exists, regardless of what a particular person feels is right. This has nothing to do with the right action changing based on the situation (killing for fun vs. in self-defense). It is also irrelevant whether we can figure out the right action for a particular situation. All that is needed for the absolutist view is for a right action to exist.
Let me know if I am missing something.
Yes there is a right action for every situation, but one's guilt or innocence depends on one's: knowledge, freedom and the gravity of the sin. It is not irrelevant whether you can work out what is right or wrong. If you do a wrong without knowing it, you are less guilty than if you knew. But having the knowledge and therefore not making the bad action will be better than not knowing and doing a bad action. This is why it is a virtue to be intelligent. There are also unintended sins, which also accrue less guilt- for example manslaughter rather than murder. The Catholic Church has worked all this out, which modern secularism ignores at its own peril.
It's a good video that outlines Aquinas' failed presumptions. It could be that Aquinas does not know that logic and reason can justify insane arguments. And whose God is one to use to explain the treatment of your fellow man?
This does sound like a consequentialist theory. Although I guess it teaches that intentions matter more than consequences of actions.
Thanks for the upload, heres some interaction, liked and subscribed
Great, thank you very much!
Thx so much
You're welcome :)
Imagine you are driving a car with a malfunction brake and with a speed of 120 km/h. In the distance, you spot some students who are crossing the pedestrian lane. Even if they do spot your car coming, they won’t be able to react and avoid the collision in time.
When you realize what is going to happen, you observe that there are four students on the right lane of the road and there is only one student on the left lane of the road. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa?
A. In the light of Natural Law Ethics, lists at least five things that you want to consider in this kind of situation before you decide and act. It must be in order according to importance/significance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. Etc.
B. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa? Present your arguments/reasons. Minimum of 3 arguments.
1.
2.
3.
C. Is your decision and/or action morally justifiable? Explain, elaborate, or expound your answer?
Note: Again, understand the situation and the questions based on the standpoint of Natural Law Ethics.
If you actually followed Natural Law Ethics, you would know better to ignore signs that are laid out before each of its students on a continual basis. God is father. God is not some abstract thought in the sky. Part of the Law is the relationship that is guaranteed. This relationship is constant conversation. If you have a faulty car, why drive it in the first place? If it has faulty brakes, why are you going that fast? Also... knowing all these factors, why be in a zone frequented by walking pedestrians? Like a school zone? A good student of Natural Laws would be contemplative at all times and empathic. Which means you always think before you do. The owner of this car sounds like a careless criminal...so their choices reflect that. There is no emergency on earth that can compel a human to just get in a car and start driving at that speed right into oncoming pedestrians without prior knowledge of the ramifications. If your car all of a sudden cannot stop, you drive it into something, not people. Natural Law, when practiced the way it is Divinely Designed, teaches one to live anticipatorily prepared. We have been so distracted away from it we are using old logic to defend current missteps. That's oxymoronic and also blind. That's like asking a vegan to describe the Spiritual Laws of Veganism, after forcing them to eat a steak. The answer will be contaminated and distorted. That is what life is like on Earth right now. No accord, a lot of excuses.
Neither I would stomp on the breaks so hard the back half of the car will raise. If I have my wheel cocked already I'm going to drift around them!!
Response is a year later, but I love your take on this. Instead of answering the question, you flip it USING the concept of natural law and awareness. Live accordingly and bind by the rules.@@tamikkowillis7285
Well, I must say it could be a good video but the dubbed voice is not something good, hehe and it somehow needs to be improve, I guess? 🙂
From my opinion i can say, Murder is wrong because it's not us as human beings who did give the life so we don't have any right to take what is not our. And so on.....
Very helpful
Glad it helped :)
The KJV Bible mis-transliterate/mis-interprates murder to killing. They refer to murder or unjustified killing. By definition murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought.
If the killing of a person is to protect one's life, or to preserve lives then it isn't unlawful or unjustified.
".... to the misconception (and the mistranslation) of the Sixth Commandment [in Exodus 20:13], ‘You shall not murder,’ as ‘You shall not kill.’ The original Hebrew, lo tirtsah., is very clear, since the verb ratsah. means ‘murder,’ not ‘kill.’ If the commandment proscribed killing as such, it would position Judaism against capital punishment and make it pacifist even in wartime. These may be defensible or admirable views, but they’re certainly not biblical.”
Only an idiot would think natural law or the Bible means killing another human is never justified. If it did half the key characters in it would be destined to Hell.
@@GoalkeeperzTM I have no idea what you are about. Care to clarify?
the KJV actually doesn't mistranslate this
back in 1610 the English word "kill" just meant "murder"
but wouldn't you know English has changed a bit since 1610
and now we would make a distinction between murder and kill
This helped a lot
but y do u sound like the biggest roadman ever lol
thx the vid was great
Ha! What can I say, London born and raised :)
Philosophy Vibe Same lol
I thought it was blasphemy when you depict God in a picture, as was done in the video? Also, none of Jesus' followers had the artistic ability to draw Him and none were literate enough to take notes? Yet we have paintings from the renaissance period and the Gospels reporting verbatim what Jesus said. I consider Aquinas to be the Machiavelli of Christianity. You can use the argument that you are pursuing the greater good to justify wars against an "evil" enemy,.
Dinos Constantinou what
@@dinosconstantinou4115 you assume that a tax collector was illiterate? How would that work? Also, the no depiction thing (iconography) is mostly an Islam thing, not Christian. Much of the modern bible, Romans, Ephesians, etc. are collections of correspondence, pretty hard to write letters, if you can't read. Your comment clearly comes from a position of prideful ignorance. Beware the fall.
No slave, No master
but if you do as you please
you'll just be a slave to sin
and your own lustful desires
@@darcevader4146 False dilemma. Not being a slave does not imply unscrupulousness (doing what I please, nor irresponsibly succumbing to my "own lustful desires" without regard for others or myself). It simply implies that morality is not a matter of blind or submissive obedience to anyone.
@@Polux1923 then what moral standard are you submissive to then ?
You call them lustful desires, but they are all YOUR lustful desires. You were born with them and they're an innate part of you. Just like with everyone else really. This is why Nietzche thought false piety and acting like you're a person with no lustful desires was pretentious. It's the same with why many people dislike those Christians who preach modesty, humbleness etc, but they're all backstabbing each other in their religious sects. Just read up some stories by people that have left religion and you will see. We basically know absolutely nothing, so there's no need to discuss further really.
There is still a law governing this situation. One cannot just unplug someone because they think there are no signs of recovery. This scenario is built on a faulty premise. Unplugging the man is simply illegal. I am curious with exploring moral dilemmas, but this is actually a legal dilemma. Unplug the man, save 3 lives... okay but the decider is still facing legal ramifications that he or she will need to account for and most likely face sentencing. The law is still functioning.
Laws are made based on the Moral structure. So first we decide if it's moral or immoral, then we make laws.
this actually happened with COVID in mexico doctors were deciding who had the better chance of survival and that's how patients will get into a vent and the others will stay without one and go into respiratory failure just because they didn't have enough vents.
And why is theory called natural law?
05:50 why would anyone want to violate the moral laws when they know its good for them?
Hi my name is Original Sin, I’m a defect in the human soul due to lack of God’s sanctifying grace from birth. I darken and weaken human intellect and human will thus the humans tend to choose lesser goods and cave to bodily desires thus breaking the natural laws. I’ll be around for the entire human existence in this life but you can try to control me by practicing virtues. God will also help you mainly through the sacraments like baptism.
Totus tuus
Aquinas says not to unpleg the person in comma. You got it wrong. The moral action is to do nothing.
CATHOLIC PRINCIPLE: an immoral act (unplugging the man in a coma) never justifies a moral outcome (saving the other three patients). Christianity believes that your soul is more important than life itself
Your books should have been free. Like really no joke in it
Naise
Aquinas andAustine , o anong ginagawa ninyo dyan sa forte ng Natural Law, gusto mo na naman isingit si Divine Law... Ayos na yung Suma Theologia at Meta Physics, hanngang don lang ang puwede...
NATURAL LAW GOES TO BACK TO AMETEKA, what the so called Indo european society falsely calls Afraka/Kemet, the birthplace of civilization.
I disagree with both
Objective Moral Laws " can still exist, does not matter if you believe in God or not
The dilemma doesn't take into account "Individual Rights that come with Natural Moral Law theory
So, no...you do NOT unplug the man in a coma
No action is needed , this no law was broken
An ant describing an elephant.
sort that carpet out boiz
Ah.. natural law wouldn't allow you to save them 3?? That coercion. The other 3 die from bad luck aka probability. The moral thing to do would be, to do nothing.
perfect video to put me to sleep😴
If your an actor just playing a role... regurgitating a script that you've memorized? That somebody else wrote than you don't have your own life
Totoo ba yan
Murray Rothbard is not religious yet advocated for natural law as part of his ethical philosophy. Read Murray Rothbard.
Correction, he did not consider himself religious. His belief in natural law contradicts that view.
@someonenotnoone that's one way to look at it. He did not see Natural Law as purely religious.
Evil live
good doog
"this feels more like a consequentialist theory rather than an absolutist one I see and finally what good is the natural law theory if you do not believe in God you can argue that God has created natural laws for humans and that our moral laws are created within nature but if we reject the whole concept of God and deny he exists and where does that leave natural law as the whole theory relies on God this theory can only appeal to religious people no one else really has a reason to adopt this" " if we reject the whole concept of God" The weakness in this argument is the "we". Who cares how many individuals reject the truth of reality it and they still have not disproven the initial claim that God determines what is true/beautiful/good/moral/virtuous because God "IS" all these things buy His very nature. God "IS" the very essence of all reality and not a competing being in space & time like the Greek gods or Dawkins "spaghetti monster" which are competing beings in space and time.
The moral thing would be, do nothing.
@@satluszair7858 yeah, So it's not a paradox because there is a answer.
Thank you very much
You are welcome :)