Some weeks ago I absent-mindedly scheduled this student question and answer for today, without reflecting on the case schedule of the Supreme Court. The timing has been fortuitous.
Question:
Does natural law theory include an account of when one may disobey unjust human laws? If so, when would it be permissible?
The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one.
Question:
“If the content of natural law is inherent in man’s nature, and the means of knowing it is inherent man’s natural power of reasoning, then why is God so fundamental to natural law theory?”
Reply:
A silly idea is making the rounds that so-called gay marriage should be embraced by conservatives because “marriage is a conservative principle.” By this reasoning, conservatives should embrace incestuous “marriages,” coerced “marriages,” and “marriages” with children too.
Monday – Student letter day!
Question:
Secular humanists deny God, holding that nothing is greater than human beings. However, do they think that some humans are greater than others?
Reply:
Last month I wrote about my conversation with a federal judge who told about the many defendants in his court who weep when they hear the pre-sentence report. Subsequently I asked him for details, and here is his reply.
For some years I have been building a case about moral knowledge, moral denial, and the revenge of conscience. In this new series, I will simply and concisely put all the pieces of the argument in one place. It will run only on Thursdays, with posts on other topics several other times a week. This is all copyrighted, of course.
Why was former President George W. Bush so resolute in assembling a coalition and a massive accumulation of force to achieve regime change during the Second Iraq War – but so irresolute (though not so irresolute as his successor) in stabilizing the country afterward?