tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post789051513864969943..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: Laws and "Laws"Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-19121238004934075602012-02-21T21:52:01.723+00:002012-02-21T21:52:01.723+00:00Actually, according to A-T philosophers like Ed Fe...Actually, according to A-T philosophers like Ed Feser, you cannot lie in order to do good. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right. Ed has dealt with this subject a lot at his blog, most recently here:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/smith-tollefsen-and-pruss-on-lying.html <br /><br />So I think from the perspective of the Catholic Church and A-T philosopher, there are moral truths that function very much like physical truths.Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-8345512904765398542012-02-21T21:51:44.817+00:002012-02-21T21:51:44.817+00:00Actually, according to A-T philosophers like Ed Fe...Actually, according to A-T philosophers like Ed Feser, you cannot lie in order to do good. In other words, two wrongs do not make a right. Ed has dealt with this subject a lot at his blog, most recently here:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/01/smith-tollefsen-and-pruss-on-lying.html <br /><br />So I think from the perspective of the Catholic Church and A-T philosopher, there are moral truths that function very much like physical truths.Fake Herzoghttp://www.imnotherzog.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-11497702833941065082012-02-15T04:15:04.194+00:002012-02-15T04:15:04.194+00:00I should have said, of course, "inversely to ...I should have said, of course, "inversely to the square of their separation".Andrew Brewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974374883049619934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-66560280156316354462012-02-14T23:10:49.900+00:002012-02-14T23:10:49.900+00:00@Mike
(second attempt - the first disappeared int...@Mike<br /><br />(second attempt - the first disappeared into the darkness)<br /><br />We can discriminate a little better than that. The empirical observations ("unsupported objects fall to the ground",for example) constitute the <b>facts</b>.<br /><br />The facts require (for the curious) an explanation, but we cannot understand something until we first know it. So we start carefully measuring things, and discover that, on the surface of the earth, and making allowances for air resistance etc., all bodies are accelerated downward at ~9.8 m/s. Investigating further, we find that all massive bodies are mutually attracted with a force proportional directly to to their collective mass, and inversely to their separation (thanks, Izzy). These regularities in the facts are <b>laws</b>.<br /><br />Then we make up stories to explain why it is so. WRT gravity, Aristotle had one, Newton had another, and Einstein had a third. These are <b>theories</b>.<br /><br />None of this helps us much with Jim's metaphor, of course. I expect he is wishing by now that he'd never mentioned gravity.Andrew Brewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974374883049619934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-76468035747343831082012-02-14T17:19:34.340+00:002012-02-14T17:19:34.340+00:00Re: the last two comments: Yes, of course moral la...Re: the last two comments: Yes, of course moral laws contain an element absent from physical laws. Moral laws, as Borys point out, are normative. They are prescriptive, whereas physical laws are descriptive. My point in this post is just that one <i>other</i> objection to describing moral laws as laws -- that there are exceptions to them -- doesn't work because there are parallels between this and physical laws.<br /><br />Now I'd like to reemphasize my final question in the post: if moral laws contain an element that physical laws lack, which is the metaphor of which?Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-19807275510992966842012-02-14T13:57:10.984+00:002012-02-14T13:57:10.984+00:00On second thought, are we not guilty here of equiv...On second thought, are we not guilty here of equivocation? "Laws" as in "physical laws" is something different than "laws" in "moral laws". "Physical laws" are "natural regularities formalized in mathematical language", while "moral laws" are "precepts about what to do in given situation". When you construe these two terms that way, you suddenly discover that they do not have that much in common. The latter contains a strong normative component, something that "physical laws" lack.Boryshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09547901312551907162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-17794718687202460092012-02-13T16:27:16.134+00:002012-02-13T16:27:16.134+00:00In my mind, the difference between moral laws and ...In my mind, the difference between moral laws and physical laws (laws of nature) is that moral laws are an ideal that describe what should happen (but often doesn't) and physical laws are an empirical observation of what does happen in nature (e.g. "unsupported objects fall"), and/or the hypothesised reason for said phenomenon ("bodies attract one another").Mike Dnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-11818971899802599732012-02-13T09:02:45.195+00:002012-02-13T09:02:45.195+00:00The concept of physical "laws" is anthr...The concept of physical "laws" is anthropomorphic as CS Lewis notices in The Discarded Image. In fact, it is more anthropomorphic than the older conception of 'tendencies" since "laws" require a rational agent that may obey or disobey them. <br /><br /><br />Also Chesterton in Orthodoxy in chapter Ethics of Elfland says that philosophically speaking there are no laws of nature, at least that we can understand. All we have are apparent regularitie that we are mislabelling as "laws"Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-64836277201551335562012-02-12T16:49:17.704+00:002012-02-12T16:49:17.704+00:00I am no scientist but I do think that the law of g...I am no scientist but I do think that the law of gravity has to do with attraction, i.e., a body will remain in contact with the earth because of gravity. Hence, when we place a book on a table we do not tie it down for fear it will float away.<br />However, because of other laws a human (unlike a book) can over rule, briefly, that law and engages in upward movement....<br />Perhaps your critics on this are corect, but Your point is very helpful. I really appreciate your insights. ThanksJeff Marxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050839922405054732noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-14741745914422656142012-02-11T21:26:51.129+00:002012-02-11T21:26:51.129+00:00Sorry guys. I included that jumping bit in there b...Sorry guys. I included that jumping bit in there because I knew -- I <i>knew</i> -- that if I just said "we can't choose whether or not to obey physical laws" someone would comment about how my whole point was that laws of nature can be be overruled by other laws, etc., etc. But then I tried to placate my imaginary commenters and I get it from the other side. Sorry!Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-78381693814316249162012-02-11T19:59:23.506+00:002012-02-11T19:59:23.506+00:00Oy, yikes, the law of gravity isn't "thin...Oy, yikes, the law of gravity isn't "things fall down" any more than the 2nd law of thermodynamics says "order can never increase". <br /><br />Objects exert a force on other objects proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Just because the <i>sum</i> of the forces temporarily results in a change in direction of your vector does absolutely nothing to change the quantity and direction of the force of gravity at any given moment.Staircaseghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02647353730607650698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-56180540172111008232012-02-11T09:53:04.909+00:002012-02-11T09:53:04.909+00:00"because I can choose to jump up and thereby ..."because I can choose to jump up and thereby thwart the law of gravity for a few moments"<br /><br />I like your post (and your blog!), and I get your point here, but I think the above example is rather bad. The law of gravity in our Earth-bound context is not a law of falling, but a law of downward acceleration. Thus we do not thwart it even for a moment when we jump up.Boryshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09547901312551907162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-88437650315887079422012-02-11T07:20:05.021+00:002012-02-11T07:20:05.021+00:00To be fair, the prohibition on lying is a prohibit...To be fair, the prohibition on lying is a prohibition on speaking contrary to what is in your mind. <i>It is not an obligation to answer any and all questions.</i> Nor is it a prohibition against deceiving. One may speak in half-truths, misdirections, evasions, and so forth, all without lying. <br /><br />That is, while there is a duty not to lie, there is no duty to tell the truth. <br /><br />There is some discussion here::<br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/murderer-at-door.htmlTheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.com