do NML weaknesses outweigh the strengths?

• YES: Upholds belief in God - synderesis was God-given - Romans 1: God's invisible qualities have clearly been seen"


  HOWEVER, NO: Doesn't apply to atheists, modern developments better - Bernard Hoose's proportionalism *Christian Ethics* - "all actions rely on a proportional reason to justify it" - embraces the psychophysical nature of humanity that requires change
• YES: Clear priorities achieve telos - "natural law is the same for all men" - seen by the primary precepts that rely on human reason - Hume *Treatise of Human Nature* - "Reason...is the stance of human passions"


  HOWEVER, NO: legalistic, even with secondary precepts. Situation Ethics would provide a better situational approach as the 6 fundamental principles indicate that "love wills the neighbours good" as "love justifies the means" - more flexibility than NML
• YES: Guidance on how to utilise synderesis and achieve eudaimonia - real and apparent goods to avoid sin and the cardinal virtues provide info on how to achieve real goods. Flexibility of doctrine of double effect allows "good...to be done and evil...to be avoided"


  HOWEVER, NO: No accountability for diverse human flourishment - John Finnis *Natural Law and Natural Rights* - we can achieve "basic human flourishing by the pursuit of goods like conscience, goods and a life plan - these are different to all and provides greater moral liberty compared to NML