Theme: Reciprocity

–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