"...what is the common good without God? It is folly to assert any definition of the common good while neglecting God--the exemplar for creation, the perfection and ultimate end of life, and the seat and fullness of what can be or is the common good.  Only in God will man identify the purest and unequivocal common good, for God is the common good.  Every law, as discussed previously, emanates and is derived from the eternal law, the divine exemplar"

Ok.  I almost puked on the page.  So, law cannot be served, justice done, or the common good sought without god?  So  the godless cannot seek the common good?  Or promulgate proper law toward the end of the common good?  Am I reading this wrong?  Yes, our law tends to be based on what is described as 'natural law'---those inherent notions that humans have (ex. killing=bad) but were these not imbued by natural selection to allow for continuance of the species?  Please help me tear this apart so I can throw this author to the wolves!!!!  He is an utter hack. 
(btw, this is from a text book for legal professionals---LMAO!) 
Thanks!  

Views: 64

Replies to This Discussion

Yes our instincts of morality are the result of natural selection. Those of the species that randomly acquired altruistic traits would have taken better care of their young. Because of this their young would have had a better chance to survive. This would have provided a natural advantage for altruistic traits over non-altruistic traits to become endowed into the species. Moreover, those of the species having altruistic traits would have more readily cooperated with each other enabling them to better survive through teamwork in hunting, building and defending themselves. Eventually, they would have outnumbered the tyrantically oriented and killed them in self-defense. Therefore, altruism (compassion, morality, desire for the common good) would have become a feature of the species through the process of natural selection driven completely by survival.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Seneca

What category do you think he falls under?

"Yes, our law tends to be based on what is described as 'natural law'---those inherent notions that humans have (ex. killing=bad) but were these not imbued by natural selection to allow for continuance of the species?"

 

The interesting thing is that even an absolute fucking nutbar like Lafayette Ronald Hubbard would have agreed with you, on this one.

 

It's interesting (well, perhaps more 'irritating' than 'interesting') to note that we, as "sentient" organisms are driven to maldefer our own nature to protect and promulgate the continuation of our genus by the very thing that goD supposedly gave us of his image: free will.

 

It seems obvious that one can have their cake and eat it, too.  Perhaps we could leave a slice cast in bronze.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service