Natural Law

• Aristotle (384 – 322 BC) 

  • Son of a wealthy court physician 
  • Studied in Plato’s academy 
  • Tutor to Alexander the Great 
  • Founded his own school in Athens 
• Aristotle believed in eudaimonia (Happiness is the fundamental goal of life). It is the goal behind every goal, the only thing people pursue for its own sake and makes life worthwhile.  

  Eudaimonia (which can also refer to flourishing and virtue) is a situation in which a person both: 

  1. Lives well and 
  2. Behaves well 

  It is NOT a selfish search for personal happiness.
• Happiness is not the same as pleasure. Aristotle claims there are three types of life: 

  1. Life of gratification 
  2. Life of politics  
  3. Life of study 

  He shows contempt for 1, recognizes a need for 2 but says 3 is the most important.  
• Aristotle divided the human soul into 3 distinct parts: 

  1. Material substance (e.g. skin) 
  2. Form or soul 
  3. Reason (helps morality) 

  REASON IS NEEDED TO BE FULLY HUMAN. 

  People can use reason to work out their chosen purpose or telos. The ability to think about actions and match them up with a chosen telos is called phronesis.  
• For Aristotle, the ideal human telos is:  

  • Rational 
  • Balanced 
  • Independent 
  • Good company 

  The ultimate telos is eudaimonia – to live well and behave in a way that shows rationality.  
• Natural Law: Deontological absolute ethics theory that says out actions are based on set laws 

  • Focuses on purpose and telos  
• “True law is right reason in agreement with nature” -Cicero 
• Synderesis rule = do good, avoid evil 
• Aquinas believed: 

  • The universe was created by God so that everything has a design and a purpose 
  • This purpose can be understood through a study of the natural world (Natural Revelation) of the Bible (Special Revelation)  
  • Humanity was given reason and freedom so that they may choose to follow good: this fulfills God's purpose for them.  
  • Aquinas 's terminology of natural moral law means: The rational understanding and following of God's final purpose for humanity. 
• Natural moral law does not require a belief in God because: 

  • It is accessible through natural order  
  • Universal 
  • Unchanging 
  • Relevant to all circumstances 
  • (God-given)  

  All human beings are able to perceive the natural law but only believers in God understand its eschatological (end of time) implications. 
• Bible quotes that support Aquinas's view:  

  “Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” - Romans 120.  

  “For your hardness of heart, Moses allowed you to divorce your wife, but from the beginning it was not so.” - Matthew 19/8.  
• Primary precepts: DA POWER

  • Do good 
  • Avoid evil 
  • Protect the innocent 
  • Ordered society 
  • Worship god 
  • Educating the young 
  • Reproduce 
• Humans can use reason to take the primary precepts (inclinations) into secondary precepts (laws). 

  E.g. Primary precept of reproduce = secondary precept of no contraception. 
• Aquinas’ Four laws: 

  1. Eternal law 
  2. Divine law  
  3. Natural law 
  4. Human/ positive law 
• “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who that exist have been instilled by God.” - Romans 13:1 
• When humans act in accordance with their true nature, they act in accordance with their final purpose. So, both the intention (interior act) and the act (exterior act) are important. 
• Double effect: A good intention with a bad action is still a good act. 

  Conditions for double effect. 

  • We do not wish evil effects and make all reasonable effects to avoid them. 
  • The immediate effect in itself should be good. 
  • The evil is not made a means to obtain the good.  
  • The good effect should be as important as the evil effect. 
• Casuistry: the process of applying natural law principles to specific situations. 

  • Apparent good occurs when someone reasons incorrectly to commit a bad act. 
• Strengths 

  • It is an absolutist view of morality.  
  • Common Rules  
  • Offers a clear structure  
  • Answers the problem of relativism 
  • It is a universal view of morality 
  • Common nature and morality for all  
  • Different cultures have the same primary precepts 
  • Belief in God, universal.  
  • It supports human rights 
  • Concrete reason to be moral  
  • Firm basis from which to refuse to step over moral boundaries 
  • Possible to make moral judgments on other societies.  
• More strengths:

  • Natural law is changeable.  
  • Not as rigid as it appears.  
  • Secondary precepts may be changed.  
  • Situations may make it impossible to keep the secondary precepts.  
  • It combines faith and reason.  
  • A desire to follow the will of God and the commandments in the Bible combined with human beings' ability to reason 
  • Respects human reason.  
• Even more strengths:

  • It appeals to human instinct.  
  • Right and wrong depend on more than just personal opinion and social convention. 
  • Human nature recognizes moral law through reason and intuition.  
  • Self-evident.  
  • The purpose of morality is the fulfillment of our nature 
  • Everything that we require for happiness, including health, friends, intellectual stimulation, is morally good. 
• Weaknesses:

  • God did not create the world for a purpose.  
  • Jean Paul Zachary, Albert Camus, Bertrand Russell and Richard Dawkins.  
  • The universe is “absurd” and “gratuitous”.  
  • The universe is a “brute fact”.  
  • No design or purpose 
  • How do we know what is natural?  
  • The Natural Outworking of Physical Laws?  
  • Death is natural, so should we work to delay it? 
  • Natural Vs culturally acceptable.  
  • Subordination of women and slavery used to be viewed as natural.  
  • Is homosexuality unnatural? 
• More weaknesses:

  • Natural law obscures basic moral differences.  
  • Kai Nielson 
  • Anthropological research suggests that some primary precepts are not, in fact, universal.  
  • Challenges idea of universal moral law 
  • Vardy and Groshek challenge Aquinas's view of sex.  
  • Aquinas states that every discharge of semen should be creative.  
  • However, sex could be justified in other ways.  
  • E.g. to strengthen a couple's relationship 
• Even more weaknesses:

  • Its rules can go against common sense.  
  • E.g. human teeth include incisors and canines. Does this mean we should all be omnivores? Are vegetarians acting immorally?  
  • Should infertile couples have sex if there is no chance of conception?? 
  • Does humanity have a shared purpose?  
  • Natural law says that we should all aim to have children.  
  • Does this make nuns and monks immoral?  
  • Aquinas’ answer that a few can choose this kind of lifestyle seems inconsistent. 
• Even more weaknesses (2):

  • The Bible does not always reflect a common human purpose.  
  • God can have different plans and purposes for individuals.  
  • E.g. Mary or prophets.  
  • There might be different purposes for different people.  
  • Aquinas: Use emotional maturity, but this introduces an element of subjectivity. 
  • What happens when different purposes contradict each other? 
  • As well as reproduction, we have other purposes. E.g. dot to love God and learn. 
  • What happens when these conflict? E.g. “turn the other cheek” versus self-preservation. 
• Even more weaknesses (3):

  • Are people actually motivated by reason?  
  • Was Aquinas too optimistic in his view of human nature and reason? 
  • Are all of us as reasonable as Aquinas?  
  • Don't people sometimes knowingly choose to do the wrong thing? 
  • Darwin's evolutionary theory.  
  • Living things are motivated by the will to survive natural selection.  
  • Humanity exists through chance, not the will of God.  
  • Humans equals fundamentally self-interested. 
• Even more weaknesses (4):

  • There is not enough attention paid to the fall.  
  • Because of the fall, we are fundamentally flawed.  
  • We need the Bible and God's revelation to know what is right.  
  • Human reason is infallible. 
  • Karl Barth 
  • The naturalistic fallacy.  
  • G.E Moore and Hume.  
  • Not logically possible to look at the facts and arrive at value judgments.  
  • ‘Ought cannot be derived from ‘is’.  
  • We cannot take our human nature and derive moral values from it.