Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Natural Moral Law (Criticisms (Hume - 'Is-Ought Problem - It is…
Natural Moral Law
Criticisms
If God created within us the ability to easily recognise and seek divine law, then why do people violate it all the time? Response - Nobody knowing pursues evil as it is impossible to violate synderesis. Instead, people who do wrong actions are in fact pursuing 'apparent' goods that seem like actual goods. Rebuttal - Simply being ignorant of Divine Law cannot be a sufficient reason especially as those with knowledge of it still violate it
If you reject the whole idea of God then Natural Law does not make any sense. This also means that worshipping God is not necessarily a primary precept
Hume - 'Is-Ought Problem - It is fallacious to assume that jut because something is a certain way, does not mean it ought to be a certain way
Just because sexual drive leads to reproduction (making it good under Natural Law) does not mean it is always good. It can also make people do immoral things such as sexual assault.
Moore - Naturalistic Fallacy - We cannot prescribe physical characteristics to abstract concepts such as 'goodness'
Theory of evolution has challenged the idea that instincts in humans and animals are God-given rather the reason we develop them is from an initial state of not having those instincts and evolving them. Challenges the idea that Natural Law is innate. Natural Selection also shows that the 'laws of nature' are impersonal, sometimes heartless, and with no perceivable motive
The Thomic Natural Law differs significantly from the original Aristotelian theory, Aristotle did not believe it was divinely inspired and both theories have very different ideas about God's role in nature
Epigenetics - Has challenged the idea of innate Natural Law saying that human behaviour is heavily reliant on the environment in which you are raised
Utilitarians and Situation Ethicists say it is sometimes too cruel to ignore the consequences of an action. But if Natural Law is delierately disobeyed once, then the whole theory falls apart
If we are to truly follow the laws of nature, then surely we can observe that monogamy is therefore unnatural due to it being virtually non-existent in the natural world?
Why should the absence of a primary precept always be considered sinful? Why is not having sex sinful? What about homosexuals and sterile people who cannot have children?
Primary Precepts
-
We can infer secondary precept from the primary precepts. An example could be to be against birth control because that is inhibiting both the primary precept of defending life and reproduction. However any secondary precept that violates any of the primary precepts cannot be considered to be moral
They can change primary precepts through 'addition' (e.g. defending life except in self defence) as well as through 'subtraction' (do not torture is a subtraction of defending life)
Aquinas believes that all of these are innate knowledge from Divine Law which itself is interpreted from the unknowable Eternal Law of God. We can infer them from nature
Dei filius (Vatican I) - Through our natural reason, even those who do not know God or scripture can still discover God
This is seen by Protestants as removing the need for God's grace as reason alone in their eyes is not what makes a person 'good'
'The natural law is altogether unchanging in its first principles: but in its second principles [...] the natural law is not changed so that what it prescribes be not right in most cases' (Aquinas ST I.II Q94 A5)
Principle of Double Effect - Following Natural Law can produce an intended good effect as well as an unintended bad effect. For example, preserving life by defending yourself against an attacker can have the unintended effect of killing the attacker (thereby violating that primary precept)
Universailty
The Basic Goods:
1.Life
2.Reproduction
3.Educate one's offspring
4.Seek God
5.Live in society
6.Avoid offence
7.Shun ignorance
Sartre - Despite being an atheist, he agreed with Aquinas' fourth point saying that everyone has a 'God-shaped hole' within them. However for him, that hole would never be filled.
-
As human nature is inherently good (being of God's creation), no evil can be desirable and no humans knowingly pursues evil.
We can observe in nature that all animals have a natural urge to preserve their life as well as to reproduce and educate their offspring.