Did the Stoics believe in something like natural law? In Aurelius I read the advice to act according to nature...

That's what I said. You saw one buzzword and missed the point of what I said.

>>theology? lmfao bullshit!

Couldn't have said it better myself

The entire idea of human beings living according to nature stems from the idea that human beings are naturally rational creatures.

The is-ought problem is very compelling to people with emiricist sympathies but not so much for the Aristotelian. The is-ought distinction is instance of misplaced concreteness. What is cannot be defined without reference to what ought to be, or what is possible (a strict superset of what ought to be). The converse is also true, that the ought, or the possible, cannot be defined outside of relation to the is, and the idea that either can be considered in isolation from the other is a fallacious reification of abstraction on sense-experience.

In that case, biblical slavery shouldn't be a problem at all

>natural law? philosophy? theology? lmfao bullshit!
natural law/natural theology is bullshit, and it's arguments for God don't work, just like it can't reason from IS-to-Ought.
philosophy has some benefit in asking better questions, clarifying meanings and showing fallacies, etc. And theology is fine as long as it's revealed or metaphysically intuited and correct.

the problem is with natural theology. not theology itself.

>not a problem for aristotelian
how so?

> What is cannot be defined without reference to what ought to be, or what is possible (a strict superset of what ought to be).
I'm talking about moral oughts, not possible or ontological oughts. Seeing event X happen doesn't tell you if we ought to create more such events or never do them again, in itself, it's just an event. You need a system of values to motivate and Ought from an Is.

I don't think that follows from recognizing that the is-ought problem presupposes empiricist metaphysics but okay. You're clearly crazy.

What is isn't ontologically prior to what ought to be.

It’s not referring to human nature. It is closer to Advaita Vedānta or Plotinian notions of instinct/will.

>You're clearly crazy.

Yes, it's clearly me, and not the zigzagging "objective" morality that's all over the place

I could explain what makes it obvious that White people evolved under monogamous marriage, chinks with polygyny, and negroes with no marriage, but that's conservative slave morality. Master morality is to fuck bitches make money, who's gonna stop you?

>What is isn't ontologically prior to what ought to be.
irrelevant, doesn't tell you if it's morally good or bad, if you ought to do it or not.

That's funny, I thought conservative slave morality was being an incel forever and whining like a bitch about it on the internet

Of course it does. For something to be good it needs to be conducive towards perfecting ones nature, to realizing what ought to be. We can't know what something is without reference to the ought.

I mean shit bitch maybe

>For something to be good it needs to be conducive towards perfecting ones nature,
How do you know the good revolves around what's good for the individual instead of good for some collective or higher-order? and what nature are you talking about? Is it observable? Try and make an actual moral syllogism starting from an IS and see how it goes, so far you aren't saying anything useful.

I haven't made a distinction between the individual or collective because what is good for one is good for all and vice versa. To ask what nature I'm talking about is nonsensical because I'm referring to what humans are, that is, rational creatures. What perfects our nature as rational creatures is good. If we discover that our is something else then whatever is good for perfecting that nature would be good, it doesn't matter.

1. Humans are rational creatures.
2. Readings books perfects our ability to rationalize
3. Reading books is good.

1. Is a problematic qualification of man.
Humans are also irrational creatures and also pre-rational[ i.e neither rational nor irrational at times.]
Humans are also emotional creatures, social creatures, solitary creatures, violent creatures, sexual creatures etc. Does that mean we should try to maximize all these qualifiers simply because the ARE (is/exist) ?? Just because rationality exists doesn't mean we should pursue it. You have some hidden premises in there...you understand? And why maximize it, why not create an equilibrium between all our faculties? This is all arbitrary.

Just because emotion or irrationality or power exist doesn't mean we should pursue them. Why OUGHT we be rational moreso than powerful or social or sexual?
Rationality doesn't come with built-in moral injuction to pursue it.
Irrationality doesn't come with a built-in moral injunction to pursue it.
You're adding this via a hidden premise.

Most stoics disapprove of homosexuals, and the wider antiquity people did as well. Stop getting your history from revisionists

I literally said
>I assume any Stoic would consider homosexuality contrary to nature

To say that humans are one thing doesn't exclude the possibility that they're also other things. To say that humans are sometimes irrational is equally toothless because when somebody is irrational like in the case of mental retardation we recognize that something is wrong with them. They're disordered or dysfunctional in some way. But like I said, this doesn't matter because if we discover in the future that our nature is something else, then whatever perfects that newly discovered nature would be what is good. Discovering new natures or disputing the nature we current;y suppose doesn't contradict the notion that we can know what perfects whatever that nature is, and thus know an ought from an is. If our nature was to be more powerful and sexual on top of being rational then perfecting our rational nature would also perfect our powerful or sexual nature.

You say rationality doesn't come with a built-in moral injunction to pursue it but that's something you need to argue because that is exactly what is at question. To merely assert it is to argue in a circle, espexially since it's contrary to common sense. Human beings are naturally curious.

our nature is multifaceted, the point was that none of those facets come with an injunction to "maximize/perfect them" over the other facets.

there's no injunction to even continue living, you could very well just kill yourself.

>You say rationality doesn't come with a built-in moral injunction to pursue it but that's something you need to argue because that is exactly what is at question. To merely assert it is to argue in a circle, espexially since it's contrary to common sense. Human beings are naturally curious.
The laws of logic don't come with any moral injunctions about how to live or what faculty to maximize,[ non-contradiction, excluded middle, A=A, etc] they don't come with a command that says "thou shalt do such and such" or "thou shalt not be irrational ever!"
That's pretty clear.
Love is quite irrational or non-rational, people aren't autistic computers that compute every decision using some "absolutely rational algorithm" such a thing doesn't even exist.

And many moral issues can't simply be solved by applying "reason" to them. You need a system of values and presuppositions that subordinate reason and give it a direction to aim for. Reason can't tell you if something is moral in itself, like if fornication is moral or immoral. Or if it's always wrong to lie.

Murder exists
It's in our nature to murder
Humans do murder each other.
Therefore they ought to murder each other.
And therefore they ought to perfect the act of murder.

Sorry, this is what you sound like.
You can't go from Is to Ought or from simple facts about natures to oughts.

I don't think murder contributes to human flourishing but whatever

I don't believe in God yet find theology to be of great value.

>homosexuality contrary to nature
It's the opposite, homosexuality and pederasty especially is common in nature. What's "unnatural" is to artificially suppress the tendency.
> monogamous marriage as opposed to polygamy
Depends on the species. In humans it's not polgyamy (harems) either, it's just sort of free for all polyamory with a lot of social scheming. Primitive humans don't do parental investment either, hominids (and a lot of other primates) raise offspring communally.
Some other species do have evolved monogamy though. The biological "wiring" can be reliably measured by dimorphism - if male and female are hard to distinguish, and male competition for females is severely diminished.

>It's the opposite, homosexuality and pederasty especially is common in nature. What's "unnatural" is to artificially suppress the tendency.
The issue is not something being common or uncommon, but whether it accords to the telos of a thing. The telos of human sexuality is reproduction, which is not possible with those of the same sex, therefore sexual relations of that sort are contrary to nature.

>It's the opposite, homosexuality and pederasty especially is common in nature. What's "unnatural" is to artificially suppress the tendency.
I agree with this faggot to some degree, even homosex is part of the natural order but Just like viruses, catastrophes, mental retardation, eye parasites, incest, cannibalism, rape, and so forth. These abominations are due to the fall of man though, but are now aspects of the empirical realm.

You can't look at nature and derive moral precepts from it directly, that's retarded. Nature doesn't tell you what's right and wrong. It just shows you what IS.

Morality or what "ought to be" is a higher order of reality, it's an ordering principle based on God's nature and Will, not nature's appearance.
We have some intuition about God's will (as St Paul said, his law is written in our hearts) because we are made in his image, and we have revelation to further help guide us, but yea we can't just look around nature and say what's right and wrong based on empirical phenomena. Just like the faggot said, animals are gay and humans have perverted urges to fuck their own kids or fuck the same gender in the butthole to satisfy their lust and passions, doesn't mean it's right or good.

.

>telos of a thing.
Without God nothing has a telos worth a damn.
Once you find God then only his telos matters.

>The telos of human sexuality is reproduction
That's too reductionist view. Sex in humans is a strong social force, far less instinctual compared to other species. But even on instinctual level, homosex is directly linked to domination/submission display between males. In chantard terms, some of the animals become twinks/traps just because it raises their reproductive success.

When it comes to unnatural homosexuality, it's lesbianism. Almost no animal does that, and humans didn't either for a very long time. Literally a socially conditioned meme, with very few exceptions where the females actually has masculinized brain (1 out of 5000 births, as opposed to feminized brain 5 out of 100 in males).

Marriage in a White civilization is conservative by definition, and conservatives are more likely to be married, but since no one will stop a conservative from taking another wife of equal genetic quality, there's no reason not to, except if the conservative has some hope of joining a conservative signaling coalition

This. For Stoics the objective nature of the species supercedes an individuals subjective experience
Don't be offended faggots it's not a moral judgement