I would like to know more about the idea that "the law is written on our hearts", but I'm not sure what this idea is called within Christian doctrine or within the tradition of Western philosophy more broadly. Any pointers?
7
-
1The name is epistemic sentimentalism and it is not specifically Christian:"Epistemic sentimentalists hold that (some) emotions are sources of moral knowledge or at least justification. Many of them believe the stronger claim that emotional experiences are necessary for coming to know basic moral truths..." Many Christians combine it with the divine command theory "that morality is somehow dependent upon God, and that moral obligation consists in obedience to God’s commands."– ConifoldCommented Aug 11 at 0:08
-
So then you just have to decide who was holding the pen: God or evolution? Both get the job done. Any relation to Virtue Ethics though?– Scott RoweCommented Aug 11 at 0:32
-
2If you want to ask about Christian doctrine specifically, I'd suggest asking on the Christianity Stack Exchange site. Questions about philosophy more broadly are probably appropriate here.– NotThatGuyCommented Aug 11 at 0:59
-
2The philosophical name for this notion "the law is written in their hearts" is "natural law", see: plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#NatLawDivPro There is no harm in asking this question here, since (1) Western philosophy since late Roman times has been deeply colored by the merger of Christianity with Greek philosophy and (2) Christian and Islamic religion has expressed its own experiences - both in their sacred books and in the apologetic traditions - using Greek philosophical language (not always digested very well).– mudskipperCommented Aug 11 at 1:06
-
@Conifold Actually, you are assuming that by "heart" is meant "feelings." In fact, the heart was regarded as a source of thought. As witness "learn by heart."– MaryCommented Aug 11 at 1:53
|
Show 2 more comments
1 Answer
This is referring to conscience. I think philosophy in general uses the same term, at least for the basic idea. The phrase "law written in their hearts" comes from Romans 2:14-16:
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
In Christianity specifically, the conscience "bears witness" to this law, indicating that the law itself is written more deeply than even the conscience, in the very "heart." You might say that the conscience is what makes this law clear to us.
-
Widely supported in Hinduism as well, see the Bhagavad Gita. (I had to beat @Rushi to the punch) Commented Aug 11 at 0:31
-
If this "law" is supposed to "objective" (as Christians commonly claim), that creates a whole bunch of problems given individuals and entire societies across history and in the modern day having vastly different moral views and different consciences. That's strong evidence against the idea that we have an unchanging law "written onto our hearts". Christians try to explain that away by saying we've been corrupted by "sin" or whatever, but if you claim we have the "law", but some people don't because "sin", and we seem to have no (objective) way to tell that apart, then it's a pointless claim. Commented Aug 11 at 0:56
-
@NotThatGuy In Christianity, the Bible affirms that the conscience can be "seared with a hot iron" (I Timothy 4:2), but that implies they once were aware of this universal law. And people can also deny what their conscience says. But the Bible isn't saying here that we can objectively prove that this law is written on each heart; it's a truth we as Christians take on faith in God's word. Commented Aug 11 at 1:04
-
1@NotThatGuy - To be fair, any substantive, important difference between two moral codes that both claim to be "reasonable" and "universal" (applicable to all humans) seems problematic to both systems. It doesn't matter imo whether those codes are embedded in a religious tradition or not. But I think that "natural law" is an attempt to explain the reverse observation -- that basic parts of moral codes are found in very different religions/cultural traditions, so instead of closing off the dialogue, it tries to open it -- unfortunately mainly used for proselytizing instead of listening... Commented Aug 11 at 1:25
-
1@mudskipper Christianity makes the claim of a universal/objective moral law, that everyone already knows. I'll grant that moral disagreement is problematic for every moral system or worldview that makes a similar claim, but I'm not sure how that helps your case. I don't hold to such a system or worldview, and I'm fine with throwing all systems that do into the trash. (Evolution explains why "basic parts of moral codes" are found all over, even among animals, it doesn't have issues with that not being universal, and it's exceedingly well-supported by evidence, but that's not a moral system) Commented Aug 11 at 1:46