Natural Law vs. Human thought

[fallen camarade]

I've come to a point in my life where I find most of human activities to be, well, somewhat useless. People can work, getting money for material items that they don't need that end up meaning nothing in the end, seeing as how no one is remembered for how nice their couch was. The forms of amusement that are reachable only with the use of currency are also somewhat monotonous and are only enjoyable for that day, and remembering them for a few days after that. It seems like meaningless repitition, so creating your own kind of amusement seems to be the most valid way of living. Live life to the fullest, don't work your life a way, etc., etc. It's an all to familiar philosophy.

The reason I mention it, is because I have always found that the natural world is the most......"honest". Many of our questions can be answered by looking into nature, or what some would call "natural law". For instance, I have had an ongoing debate with a friend of mine about the valildity of killing or murder. I gave the scenario, to be brief, of a homeless man in the city with no chance of getting a job, or any other means of keeping himself alive. If he were to see a modern man with a few bags of groceries, on philosophical terms, I see the homeless man killing the man with the groceries for the sake of getting food to be more than justifiable if he has the ability to do so, on the grounds that in nature, we call this survival of the fittest, and is ethically sound, while in our own civilization, we call it murder, and are even willing to kill the murderer to express our utter disguist of such a thing. If the homeless man is able to carefully plot out the attack, catch his victim off guard, avoid being caught, and is thus able to feed himself, is he not the fittest in this situation? Why do we call this cowardly in our civilization, when with any other species, it is considered to be skillful and a promise of a good life to have such an ability?

Well, the answer is simple....we are not those other species. We are human beings and thus act differently from other life forms on this planet, but the thing is, that in our minds, we still possess those primal elements. As Nietzche would ask, is not all actions of man simply in desire to rise to some sort of power? Power, in this day and age, can have it's meaning in the most obvious of context, of having power over others in authority and such, but can also be as simple as gaining the respect of a few peers you know of, to the point where if you requested a favor of them, they would do it. That is a will to power. Not trying to be forceful on them, but any sort of social position, even in a minor setting, is a position of a power of some sort.

With this in mind, it is obvious that there is a sort of dichotemy where this "natural law" and man's modern mind coexist, despite how opposite they are on many levels. The issue, is that I can not find the balance. For instance, the mind of man angle of warfare and politics says that all are created equal, and that each and every being has just as much right to live as any other. Being an American, this is an obvious issue, dealing with the "war on terrorism". I speak of how cowardly it is to do the things we do in the middle east, and how killing the innocent is ethically wrong, and how it is only for America's savage will to expand their power as far as they can all over this planet. On the other hand, is my natural law standpoint of, "is this really wrong?". Of course, I don't find it in my power to take someone's life, due to being conditioned to be the human of today, but philosophically, it is a will to power. America wants to extend their power and authority....well, if they can do it, and there is not an opposition enough to stop it, is America not the fittest nation?

I could elaborate more on this confusion to paint a better picture of it, but don't have the time, not to mention many will not want to read much more than what I have so far. I think the general idea has been presented clear enough. I find many of my opinions that were once very solid to be crumbling in the confusion as to what is really "just"; the man, or nature? I don't know. Which one is more justifiable to look to for answers? If there is not an answer to that, and there is a balance, where do I find the balance? Under what situations should I look to one or the other? When I really think hard about this, I find that I really have very few answers.

What do you all think about this matter, and does anyone have any suggestions?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

It is quite a complex question despite its apparent simplicity and one I have thought about a lot myself. Nietzsche's perspectivism tends to get people thinking like this ands its healthy.

There is not much one can reply to this, I no longer have an ideology or try to justify the actions of other men and women, I just make sure I live as I want to which I guess is a form of my will to power.

Its not much of an answer but my caffeine tablets are waring off!

[monkeydust]

fallen camarade

A good essay, and a point well made.



Let's take your first example.


I see the homeless man killing the man with the groceries for the sake of getting food to be more than justifiable if he has the ability to do so, on the grounds that in nature, we call this survival of the fittest, and is ethically sound, while in our own civilization, we call it murder, and are even willing to kill the murderer to express our utter disguist of such a thing.

Personally, I think that evryone realises, even if they didn't concsiously think about it, that if everyone was willing toperform such acts as "murdering people for their groceries",society will degrade into a state of chaos. Though if the world was in such a state perhaps the "fittest" would survive, though a great number would be killed for senseless reasons.


As Nietzche would ask, is not all actions of man simply in desire to rise to some sort of power?

I personally don't entrirely accept with Nietszche's supposed "will to power" principal. I, and many others I know have, in the past, donethings out of reasons not to gain power.

I accept that a great deal of things are done to gain 'power', though by no means all.

Many people do things because they find them intrinsically rewarding. Teaching, or being a Doctor may give someone a sense of 'self-satisfaction', and may not involve any 'will to power' at all.

For me, much of this issue is answered by something you mentioned in passing.


Well, the answer is simple....we are not those other species.

A major reason for the comparative success of humanity, over other species, is our ability to overcome much primal, instinctual behaviour, working together and abiding to 'common' laws for the "common good".



America wants to extend their power and authority....well, if they can do it, and there is not an opposition enough to stop it, is America not the fittest nation?

America's situation is not a case of 'survival of the fittest', nor are a myriad of modern situations.

For me 'survival of the fittest', in most circumastances is a crude rule applying to nature, advancing the evolution of most species.

For mankind the situation is much different. Who is "fittest" doesn't really apply to our circumstances.

To give an example, in nature, a basic animal survives and prospers by by its ability to reproduce, its ability to obtain food and water and its ability to avoid being eaten and/or killed.

Humans however, have a capacity for creativity, that can enhance our lives and circumastances in much more indirect means. A man such as Stephen Hawking may not be the "fittest" in a natural sense, though his contribution to mankind if far greater than most other people much better adapted to 'survive' than him.

Such basic natural laws simply cannot apply to advanced society.

We shouldn't allow the U.S. to 'invade the world' simply because it is 'stronger'. To human kind, traits other than 'strength are considered vitally important.

[pandora]

Originally posted by fallen [email protected] 27 2004, 03:59 PM
I've come to a point in my life where I find most of human activities to be, well, somewhat useless. People can work, getting money for material items that they don't need that end up meaning nothing in the end,

What do you all think about this matter, and does anyone have any suggestions?
As a Buddhist Communist/Socialist [depends on the issue or policy where in the spectrum I slide par exemplo land use--commie] I would say you are developing renunciation for the material world. Excellent as this is an important realization as a commie, and in Buddhist Philosophy.

Basically before you can dedicate your life for others you have to have a realization of how futile mundane existence is on this planet, how most people work for nothing, work to live, live to work, and want to change that.

It's amazing when working with cooperatives, even for a day or a week when we realize how much BETTER life could be. Water the crops, teach the children, take a walk, that's this type of bird, you can eat this plant.

We're so out of touch, sometimes when I visit cooperatives, or am invited to say Native American or Tibetan community events, spiritual events, or prayer ceremonys I cry at how worthless this Masonically constructed crapo illusion has become. I start to hate pavement, and see most buildings and infrastructure as useless. Imagine trees and parks, and wilderness through so much more of this land. Hell we can't even get a pathway now from North to South America or even Central America for wolves, bears and migratory animals. Deer get cut off and die by the droves on the roads trying to find a passageway.

My suggestion, this is the starting point, welcome to the club, it's like walking through a doorway and finding millions of people on the other side saying, "Glad you could join us, we've been waiting for you" but it's been for you to discover your path, red path or not.