How could it not come to such a conclusion if it is a principle that unites natural and moral claims
Ask the person who says it unites natural and moral claims. Don't ask me, or show me where in the scriptures it is said to be something that unites natural and moral claims. I only said it's the governing principle of the universe which in its manifested forms decides what the consequences of moral choices will be just as it governs what the consequents of physical happenings will be.
If murders exist then they are part of the natural order, correct Wow, it would be hard to find a more blatant example of begging the question than that. You yourself equivocate between the use of the words "natural order" in the descriptive and prescriptive sense, then try to use your own equivocation to claim that Rta does't distinguish between is and ought.
Listen carefully: "Murders exist" isn't in the form of a law, it is a statement of what exists. Hence it is not of the form of Rta. Statements expressive of Rta would be more of the form of "If you do X, Y happens," or "when X happens in nature, Y is the effect." That is the only sense in which it is an order. Not in the sense of a statement "Ricky Ponting is a Cricket Player." It's not dictated by Rta that Ricky Ponting has to be the cricket player, it can well be otherwise - and if he gives up Cricket he won't be violating any order. Thus, "people commit murders" isn't part of the natural order. The natural order is only that committing murders has serious harmful consequences - that is all. Again, something of the form of law has to be something like "committing murder has the effect of causing misery to oneself and others" That is the form of a law that operates, and is closer to an expression of Rta. Therefore, a believer in Rta wouldn't be violating Rta if he doesn't commit murders despite being aware that there are people commit murders - because Rta does't ask you to do anything of the sort. Rta isn't prescriptive in itself - it only governs what the consequences of actions/events will be, so the question of violating it doesn't arise. The prescriptive laws are Dharma - such as "you shouldn't be violent." Those can be violated or adhered to by people. You can see that the fact of Rta ("Committing murders leads to dire consequences") is not in opposition with the moral prescription of Dharma ("you should not commit murders"). Rather, it supports it, and forms a basis for Dharma and moral choices.
I have explained to you in as much detail as I can what the characteristics of Rta are, and what they are't. If you still insist on interpreting terms like "natural order" (which, you should be cognizant, is a translation) in the wrong connotation which is nowhere intended or stated in Hindu scriptures, and thereby drawing incorrect conclusions from it, then I can't help you any further.
I have not attacked any argument of yours based on any personal characteristic of yours, so there was no ad hominen. Rather, I directly told you how I felt about you randomly dropping substantive points which for me were the purpose of discussion and moving to pet concepts of yours which are not essential to the discussion. Based on my impression of you I did not expect you to engage in discussion with me in this manner, and I saw insincerity in your doing so repeatedly, and so I told it to you. I started this discussion with you despite being incredibly busy only because I expected you to appreciate and reciprocate the effort, and I didn't find that. I thought being candid about this was in order, sorry if you don't like it.
no subject
Ask the person who says it unites natural and moral claims. Don't ask me, or show me where in the scriptures it is said to be something that unites natural and moral claims. I only said it's the governing principle of the universe which in its manifested forms decides what the consequences of moral choices will be just as it governs what the consequents of physical happenings will be.
If murders exist then they are part of the natural order, correct
Wow, it would be hard to find a more blatant example of begging the question than that. You yourself equivocate between the use of the words "natural order" in the descriptive and prescriptive sense, then try to use your own equivocation to claim that Rta does't distinguish between is and ought.
Listen carefully: "Murders exist" isn't in the form of a law, it is a statement of what exists. Hence it is not of the form of Rta. Statements expressive of Rta would be more of the form of "If you do X, Y happens," or "when X happens in nature, Y is the effect." That is the only sense in which it is an order. Not in the sense of a statement "Ricky Ponting is a Cricket Player." It's not dictated by Rta that Ricky Ponting has to be the cricket player, it can well be otherwise - and if he gives up Cricket he won't be violating any order. Thus, "people commit murders" isn't part of the natural order. The natural order is only that committing murders has serious harmful consequences - that is all. Again, something of the form of law has to be something like "committing murder has the effect of causing misery to oneself and others" That is the form of a law that operates, and is closer to an expression of Rta. Therefore, a believer in Rta wouldn't be violating Rta if he doesn't commit murders despite being aware that there are people commit murders - because Rta does't ask you to do anything of the sort. Rta isn't prescriptive in itself - it only governs what the consequences of actions/events will be, so the question of violating it doesn't arise. The prescriptive laws are Dharma - such as "you shouldn't be violent." Those can be violated or adhered to by people. You can see that the fact of Rta ("Committing murders leads to dire consequences") is not in opposition with the moral prescription of Dharma ("you should not commit murders"). Rather, it supports it, and forms a basis for Dharma and moral choices.
I have explained to you in as much detail as I can what the characteristics of Rta are, and what they are't. If you still insist on interpreting terms like "natural order" (which, you should be cognizant, is a translation) in the wrong connotation which is nowhere intended or stated in Hindu scriptures, and thereby drawing incorrect conclusions from it, then I can't help you any further.
I have not attacked any argument of yours based on any personal characteristic of yours, so there was no ad hominen. Rather, I directly told you how I felt about you randomly dropping substantive points which for me were the purpose of discussion and moving to pet concepts of yours which are not essential to the discussion. Based on my impression of you I did not expect you to engage in discussion with me in this manner, and I saw insincerity in your doing so repeatedly, and so I told it to you. I started this discussion with you despite being incredibly busy only because I expected you to appreciate and reciprocate the effort, and I didn't find that. I thought being candid about this was in order, sorry if you don't like it.