Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • If I understand you correctly, then the answer is morality is a universal prohib

    If I understand you correctly, then the answer is morality is a universal prohibition and a context specific (particular) prescription. This is a more sophisticated (complex) understanding of morality as we have found many things more complex at large scale. That said, like all…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 13:01:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745430799246094441

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745385926786728252

  • RT @WerrellBradley: What we do at The Natural Law Institute. We seek to reinstit

    RT @WerrellBradley: What we do at The Natural Law Institute.

    We seek to reinstitute Moral Law in our abjectly corrupted civilization.

    We…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 12:58:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745429954681057719

  • Q:WHAT’S THE NATURAL LAW AND HOW IS YOUR WORK DIFFERENT FROM IT?”– -“What, then

    –Q:WHAT’S THE NATURAL LAW AND HOW IS YOUR WORK DIFFERENT FROM IT?”–

    -“What, then, is natural law? For its proponents, “natural law” is law that proceeds from or is grounded in – variously – the mind or will of God, nature, or human reason. In the broadly shared Western tradition of moral reflection found in the centuries we will explore, “natural law” is the understanding that there is a universal morality naturally accessible to all rational people.”–

    In my work, having adopted the Natural Law frame once I understood my own work well enough to consider the application of it to the broader context, is simply the result of unification of the four sciences (physical, behavior, evolutionar, and formal-logical), and the resulting science of decidabilty, applied to the question of human cooperation at increasing scales.

    I did not base my work on theology, or philosophy, but on the demonstrated behavior of man, the sciences of neurology, economics, and law. Hence, I don’t make use of moral prose, or engage in moral noise-making or moral pretense. Morality is simply a fact – and a universal.

    I can either write a proof of it or not.

    The principle problem facing historical thinkers theorists jurists philosophers, and theolgians was that they concievd morality as a universal positive prescription rather than a universal negative proscription.

    So, just as justificationary philosophy was false, just as justiicationar logic was false (all logic is falsificationary) and all science is falsificationary – so are moral laws falsificationary. In other words, what is universal is what we must not do. What varies are the conditions under which we must not do it.

    This places a higher cognitive burden on the human subconsious, intiuiotion, emotions and mind, since at all times humans prever intuition and imitation over reason, and in most case other than the ordinary habit, morality, as a negativa, requires some thinking – and it turns out that much more than half of the population in some cases, in some demographic distributions, has a very difficult time with it. As such we need moral rules, encoded in moral laws for those things that are hard, more so than those things that are simple. 😉

    As such, as I use the term Natural law, I mean it as within that set of Laws of Nature, Within that set of Behavioral laws of nature, the rules of cooperation, in the form of the mandatory (Inalienable), the positive assertion (Rights), and the negative assertion (Obligations), and the resulting institutional means of organizing the hierarchy of markets of cooperation from individuals to the government, for the production of goods, services, and information, both private and common.

    Or stated more simply, those rules of cooperation that suppress the incentive for conflict, aggression, retaliation, retaliation cycles. As such the natural law is a standard of weights and measures for not only mankind but all sentient life capable of reason.

    Therein lives the rub – that we are not all equllay capable of that same reason. And our insticts suggest we avoid it at our leisure. 😉

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-11 03:18:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745284021163012096

  • It’s what I (we) are calling it until wecome up with something else. The work in

    It’s what I (we) are calling it until wecome up with something else.

    The work in progress
    https://naturallawinstitute.com/docs/

    How to study it
    https://naturallawinstitute.com/2023/06/whats-the-best-way-to-study-your-work/

    Our Organization
    https://naturallawinstitute.com/


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 21:59:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745203828146713060

    Reply addressees: @Voluntarist_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745201327204974658

  • No man of honor boasts of it. If anything he states that he attempts to achieve

    No man of honor boasts of it. If anything he states that he attempts to achieve it, and if falsely accused defends it with all his might.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 18:14:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745146994551648639

  • We can be equal to our duty to one another against harms, even if we are not equ

    We can be equal to our duty to one another against harms, even if we are not equal to for one another in our ability and capacity to produce goods.

    Both are necessary. The first produces equality. The second produces hieararcy. And together they produce meritocracy and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 17:05:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745129781459321210

  • I cannot testify to the mind or word of god. Nor can I testify to the demonstrat

    I cannot testify to the mind or word of god. Nor can I testify to the demonstrated capacity or record of anyone else in all of human history to do so. I can only testify to the laws of the universe we learn to understand, and that should god exist, then these are his laws. And while he does not speak to us in word or mind, or hand us these laws on tablets, we may, through our efforts, disover those laws we can testify to. And among these, the most sacred are the natural laws of cooperation, wherein we defend one another’s right to self determination by self determined means, by mutual ensurance of sovereignty in demonstrated interests, reciprocity in display word and deed, truth before face regardless of cost, and this sacred duty before self, family, kin, nation, or state. If there is a god, and he has will, then he has willed that we follow this law – or that his law of evolution erase us from existence so that others may do better than we have. For if we are his children, then our purpose is to rise to become worthy of our paternity.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 16:20:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1745118421400915978

  • The Brutal Science of Our Natural Law Formulation Where the previous milennias a

    The Brutal Science of Our Natural Law Formulation

    Where the previous milennias asked this question:
    –“To summarize: Classical natural law theory can be understood as a commitment to the following two claims: (1) Moral validity is a logically necessary condition for legal validity—an unjust or immoral law being no law at all; and (2) The moral order is a part of the natural order-moral duties being in some sense ”read off” from essences or purposes fixed (perhaps by God) in nature.”–

    Instead, our construction is quite simple:
    The only reason for I and mine not to kill you and take your Stuff, is if there is more utility than doing so. And the only means of obtaining that utility is cooperation. And the terms of that cooperation are reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means in the form of sovereignty in demonstrated interest and reciprocity in display word and deed. Only then does a ‘we’ exist, instead of an ‘I’. In other worse, this is the means by which commons are produced, and commons are a multiplier, and it is commons that defend us against the dark forces of time, nature, man, and ignorance.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-10 07:34:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744986131836403712

  • Haidts Moral Foundations as Property Rights Many of you have become aware of Hai

    Haidts Moral Foundations as Property Rights Many of you have become aware of Hai

    Haidts Moral Foundations as Property Rights
    Many of you have become aware of Haidt’s Moral Foundations, which are a parallel to big five personality traits. Sex, IQ, IQ Composition, Personality Traits, and Moral Traits are pretty solid descriptors of the totality of a person,… https://t.co/hwIhUKK1wa


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-08 16:44:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1744399790077510000

  • Yes the via negativa version of non-false moral laws are consistent with natural

    Yes the via negativa version of non-false moral laws are consistent with natural law (of cooperation) and natural law is merely a continuation of and consistent with the
    physical laws of nature


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-04 23:30:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743052248203096219

    Reply addressees: @dbabbitt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1743033065570488749