^ I just thought of one more thing, not to debate further, but just to think about.

Let's take "the law of gravity."

We use the word "law" to describe it, but it is not the same concept as a law of man.

It would be more accurate to say "the force of gravity."

These "laws of nature" are not really laws or rules in the same sense that we think of laws and rules made by man. They are not really even laws or rules made by God.

They are merely our observation of how the world works, and specifically the forces of nature.

Maybe that is what I am objecting to when the term "Natural Law" is used to really mean the "forces of nature."

CAN someone punch someone for no reason? Sure, there is no force of nature stopping it.

But what if we don't want society to be a place where this is accepted as a routine thing? The vast majority of people would be constantly in peril, and we don't want that due to how we think people SHOULD engage with each other in society.

Humans have learned to co-exist without doing these things ... for the most part.

Why?

Because we prefer it that way.

And THIS is where we get into a discussion about the human concept of "rights."

Rights are not a force of nature. There really is no "law of nature" in the same sense that there are man-made laws to deal with the man-made concept of rights.

These are really two different concepts.

Maybe that is my true objection to this whole thing.

But we could only find agreement if we were discussing this in person, probably over a few drinks.

^ I just thought of one more thing, not to debate further, but just to think about.

Let's take "the law of gravity."

We use the word "law" to describe it, but it is not the same concept as a law of man.

It would be more accurate to say "the force of gravity."

These "laws of nature" are not really laws or rules in the same sense that we think of laws and rules made by man. They are not really even laws or rules made by God.

They are merely our observation of how the world works, and specifically the forces of nature.

Maybe that is what I am objecting to when the term "Natural Law" is used to really mean the "forces of nature."

CAN someone punch someone for no reason? Sure, there is no force of nature stopping it.

But what if we don't want society to be a place where this is accepted as a routine thing? The vast majority of people would be constantly in peril, and we don't want that (because we think it SHOULD not be that way).

Humans have learned to co-exist without doing these things ... for the most part.

Why?

Because we prefer it that way.

And THIS is where we get into a discussion about the human concept of "rights."

Rights are not a force of nature. There really is no "law of nature" in the same sense that there are man-made laws to deal with the man-made concept of rights.

These are really two different concepts.

Maybe that is my true objection to this whole thing.

But we could only find agreement if we were discussing this in person, probably over a few drinks.