Well, your little digression about Christianity has been interesting, but it only strengthens my feeling that natural law theory is too religious.
What do you mean by "too religious"?
You only say there is a God because of the Bible.
I say there is a God because His reality is by far the best explanation of a great many features of our existence. Including the fact that we exist. The Bible agrees, but it would be true even if there were no Bible.
Be that as it may, morality stems from human need and interest.
Is this what you mean? We are so made that we need to love God; we are so made that we need to love our neighbors; we are so made that we need to develop the virtues. Also, we are so made as to be interested in truth; we are so made as to be receptive to the demands of friendship; we are so made as to be attracted, despite ourselves, to moral goodness. These are what I call human need and interest -- the needs and interests which arise from the design of human nature.
No, that's not what I mean.
Then what do you mean?
I'm not sure, but not that.
Could it be that you want man to be to himself what God has been to man hitherto?
What if I do? What would be wrong with that?
I see three problems with it, all very practical. The first problem is that if man is to assume the office of God to himself, he will have to square it with the present occupant. I think he may find that difficult.
Not if there is no God.
That's a mighty big counterfactual. But the second problem is that you're too late. Man has already been created. He has already been provided with being. It is too late for him to give himself a different being than he has.
But it's not too late to change it.
To monkey with it, you mean. The third problem is that when you say "man," you mean some men.
You say you want man to be to himself what God has been to man. But what God has been to man is man's absolute superior, and man cannot be his own superior. A thing can be equal to itself, but it cannot be greater than itself. So when you say you want man to be to himself what God has been to man hitherto, you mean you want some men to be to other men what God has been to man. You want some men to be the absolute superiors of others. I assume --
That's not what I --
Let me finish. I assume that you want to be in the former group and not in the latter. And so when you say morality stems from human need and interest, you mean you want it to stem from your needs and interests, over against the needs and interests of the others.
That's not what I mean at all.
Forgive me, but it is exactly what you mean. You say you want to change the human design. But in that case there must be two groups: Those who cause the change, and those who result from it. And the former hold all the cards.
The future men will thank us for it.
If you have changed them, will they be men?