Show of Hands

So? What's your argument to the contrary?

Posted it to you countless times.

Me? I don't even know who the hell you are.

That is a "law" written by man to describe what little we know of a "natural" phenomenon. Gravity exists in nature, but the "law" of gravity does not.

So you'd describe the right to own property as "invariable"? I think there's a shitload of people in the world who are living proof that that's not true.

praet, that seems like a better definition of "scientific law" than of "natural law".

The only truly "natural" law is that entity most willing and able to kill the shit out of you makes the laws. All modern governments derive their power from the just consent of the soldiers that are willing to kill to protect them.

Good example for abuse of the term "natural law", another one is defining same-sex relationships as a "crime against nature". However, that doesn't invalidate the expression as I defined it above.

Great summary of the philosophy of the Nazis, Aran. But since natural law is an illusion, we're really no better than they are. We just have bigger guns. Right?

That's correct. Majority rules. When you do something so nasty that the entire rest of the world decides to beat the shit out of you, whatever you just did gets called "evil" for as long as people remember that it happened. That's how morality works.

if for whatever reason enough other countries had joined the Axis side and fascism/Nazism had actually won WWII, we would all be debating the evils of communism from an entirely different perspective and calling ourselves 'Good.'

That's dangerous and ridiculous. That's not how morality or any objective truth works. I can write "1+1=5" until I'm blue in the face. Even if I convince the rest of the world, it's not true.

There is no such thing as objective truth. There are only people convinced that objective truth exists, but the simple fact that there are other people who are not so convinced objectively proves the subjectivity of truth.

"There is no such thing as objective truth."

Except, I suppose, for that statement. An argument against truth is self defeating for that purpose.

Fine, I'll rephrase: If you can find proof of objective truth for me, I'll bow to it. I have 7 billion+ pieces of evidence for subjective truth. Bring it.

That's called Logical Positivism, aka verificationism. It is also self defeating. The premise, "Only what can be definitively proven is objectively true" fails by its own standards, since that statement cannot be proven. Thus a contradiction ensues.

Some truth in the world is axiomatic. That's inevitable in any system of truth. Look up Godel's theorem. That's just the nature of reality: Not all truths can be proven. It doesn't make them less true.