Until someone actually makes a POSITIVE CASE for these other law doctrines I will see the lack of such a positive case as being evidence that they are anti-reason-schools of silly-buggery.

In constitutional law only originalism appears to be a sound doctrine. And I would see originalism as being in accordance with natural law and with the idea of seperating things into their appropriate categories.

Its not so much that anti-originalist schools of thought are not as good as originalism.

Its more that they aren’t any sort of schools of thought at all but merely leftist silly-buggery.

But since I believe the way we hone in on some level of certitude is through CONVERGENCE some of these schools ought to be able to play a role.

And certainly utilitarian claims ought to come into some judgements as a moderating influence.

But as far as I can see the body of doctrine of natural law (and originalism in constitutional law) win out by default.

Since the other guys won’t make a case.

It doesn’t matter that originalism or natural law is not fullproof.

Since we know we need some doctrine of law all that matters is whether it is bested by another doctrine.

But so far I can barely see that there ARE OTHER DOCTRINES.

We can surely keep improving on this body of work. But we won’t do it by pulling the Hume-nuke and then running off and saying any damn thing.

You have a rich body of work in natural law theory.

Now as far as I can see its pretty transparent too unlike the JIVE that Barnes and Soon get up to.

So as an atheist if I’m reading Aquinas I’m gong to immediately see where I disagree.

Now it would be just silly of me to reject natural law on the basis of …..

Ho ho…. Hume has refuted Aquinas….. Ho Ho.

I see no reason to reject the body of work as a whole since it appears to be open to amendment.

I would see just-war-theory as being rightly thought of as but of natural law or as an associated subject.

Now in just war theory we have the idea of an imminent threat.

Now I wouldn’t reject all of just war theory on the basis that this IMMENINCE business clearly needs a second look at it.

Its gotten too nasty to leave things for an imminent threat to develop.

So just war theory stays and we update it or amend it and we keep going.

UNLESS WE FIND A SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE.

But what Jason and Daniel are doing is if they don’t like an idea they just pull the Hume-nuke out.

But they don’t pull the Hume-nuke out for the ideas that they do like.

This is not reason its a character-flaw.

You leftist-projecting piece of filth.

What is your alternative to natural law?

Its YOU that refuses to make a case for one.

The point is you have to compare them to see which is more valid.

As I’ve already proven.

This character-flaw (and thats all it is) of invoking Hume-like skepticism has got to stop.

You’ve got to swear off it.

You fucking leftist-projecting piece of filth.

What is your alternative to natural law?

You don’t have one?

Lets see it AND DON’T DAZZLE ME WITH THOSE EYELASHES BIG BOY (EDIT BY ADMIN)

The point is you have to compare them to see which is more valid.

As I’ve already proven.

This character-flaw (and thats all it is) of invoking Hume-like skepticism has got to stop.

You’ve got to swear off it.

Its fucking shabby behaviour.

But there is no refutation in natural law there.

It would merely alter the way you thought about it.

Once again we go back to the hardcore stupdity of both of you.

Supposing we get negativist law theory, utilitarian law theory and natural law theory up and compare all three.

Which of them passes a full spectrum Hume-skepticism test?

The answer is none of them.

So so far you guys are just playing silly buggers with all the claims you make.

What argument? You’re just waffling.

Jason, thanks for reproducing SL’s piece, that was exactly the f’rinstance I was going to offer GMB. Seeing as he can’t come up with any himself.

He refuses to articulate a general case, and offers no particular examples either. This tends to indicate he ain’t got nuttin’ in the first place.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2182

Much of modern legal positivism (and Hayek’s evolutionary theory) has its origins in a discovery by the Scottish philosopher and natural scientist David Hume [1711–1776]. Put briefly, Hume’s law states that you cannot infer a value from a fact. This is best illustrated by an example:

1) The human race reproduces itself by bearing children.
2) Jane is a human being.
3) Therefore Jane ought to have children, or at least make the attempt.

I have used this particular example (Hume provides lots more in his writings) because it illustrates the seriousness of the problem for natural law. Much religiously inspired natural law (to take one example) makes a case for non-contraceptive reproduction – one has only to look at the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae [1968] and the writing of John Finnis, arguably the best modern natural lawyer.

However, unless one believes in a particular, teleological interpretation of the Bible (or Koran, or other holy book, or other defined perspective), then you cannot argue that just because Jane can have children, she therefore should have children. Inference 3 (value) does not follow logically from inferences 1 and 2 (both facts).

Natural lawyers have been trying to prove Hume wrong ever since he first made the discovery, utterly without success. Since natural law depends so heavily on universal values, the inability to determine them with accuracy (or at all, if Hume is to be believed) makes its task of linking morality to law doubly difficult. This means that Natural law is now stuck with an extremely awkward ‘first premise’ problem. While positivism and evolutionary theory may have weaknesses embedded within their arguments, natural law theory falls at the first hurdle.

Go to bat for Hume.

Go to bat for Hume or admit I’m right.

Thats bullshit too.

Just stealing my credit.