Re: natural law (was: The White House Needs Elizabeth Warren, Now More Than Ever)
Lance McLain <lance-X3DuywwxauBWk0Htik3J/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Nov 5, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Peter T. Chattaway wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, [email protected] wrote: > >> > Actually, I'm not sure that natural law theory *does* refer to >> the > *evidence* of nature, per se. I'll look into this more when I >> get > home. >> >> Personally...that takes all meaning out of the word "natural" and >> makes for a empty argument. I look forward to seeing what you >> find. :) > > Well, not that I consider Wikipedia authoritative or anything, but > they indicate that there are multiple kinds of "natural law" out > there -- which immediately tells you that invoking "natural law", > full stop, doesn't necessarily get us anywhere. Yeah...my interpretation is driven almost exclusively by Lysander Spooner's excellent essay on the subject. regards, -Lance -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot