Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8771875" data-attributes="member: 18">Cicero was a very witty guy, but a massive fantasist, and ignored the fact that by the same &quot;natural law&quot;, slavery should be rejected. Except he didn't entirely ignore it - he actually acknowledges slavery is &quot;unnatural&quot; and to be opposed - but only if applied to Romans. For others it is &quot;natural&quot; and fine.Your entire argument for &quot;natural law&quot; is nuked from orbit because of that. He is the guy who really originates the idea (as I understand it), and his views were downright evil.You say:Cicero had zero respect for human dignity.Absolutely none.He defended Rome's massive slavery (which was wildly aberrant even at the time), and whilst he sometimes made witty little quips about how he wasn't sure the right people were slaves, he was very clear that there should be slaves, and masters.He also avoided criticising Roman genocides and massacres. He criticised a lot of things, but consistently ignored that stuff, even as Romans of his era boasted about it. For example, Caesar genocided maybe 1/3rd of the Gauls, and enslaved about another 1/3rd. Did Cicero take him to task? Absolutely, but not for that! No Cicero didn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail - indeed he defended the war in Gaul! Something some other Romans criticised because the Gauls were Roman allies and what was happening horrified them. In fact he was a huge fan of Caesar's book on the Gallic Wars, calling &quot;splendid&quot; and described as basically stripped-down and muscular.What's my point? Natural law is a lovely idea that clearly false, or rather, if it's not false, is easily overridden by tradition and advantage. So your argument just doesn't work. Cicero abandoned the most basic principles of right and wrong because it was advantageous to his nation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8771875, member: 18"] Cicero was a very witty guy, but a massive fantasist, and ignored the fact that by the same "natural law", slavery should be rejected. Except he didn't entirely ignore it - he actually acknowledges slavery is "unnatural" and to be opposed - but only if applied to Romans. For others it is "natural" and fine. Your entire argument for "natural law" is nuked from orbit because of that. He is the guy who really originates the idea (as I understand it), and his views were downright evil. You say: Cicero had [I]zero respect [/I]for human dignity. [I]Absolutely none.[/I] He defended Rome's massive slavery (which was wildly aberrant even at the time), and whilst he sometimes made witty little quips about how he wasn't sure the right people were slaves, he was very clear that there should be slaves, and masters. He also avoided criticising Roman genocides and massacres. He criticised a lot of things, but consistently ignored that stuff, even as Romans of his era boasted about it. For example, Caesar genocided maybe 1/3rd of the Gauls, and enslaved about another 1/3rd. Did Cicero take him to task? Absolutely, but not for that! No Cicero didn't give two shakes of a lamb's tail - indeed he defended the war in Gaul! Something some other Romans criticised because the Gauls were Roman allies and what was happening horrified them. In fact he was a huge fan of Caesar's book on the Gallic Wars, calling "splendid" and described as basically stripped-down and muscular. What's my point? Natural law is a lovely idea that clearly false, or rather, if it's not false, is easily overridden by tradition and advantage. So your argument just doesn't work. Cicero abandoned the most basic principles of right and wrong because it was advantageous to his nation. [/QUOTE]

Verification