Natural Law
Aquinas' Key Points
Key Evaluation
Other approaches
Key discussions
Telos
Something is good if it fulfils its purpose (telos), e.g. the good knife cuts well
Aristotle believed if we realised our potential in the world, this would result in happiness and flourishing in society - this he called 'eudaimonia'
Aquinas believed that humanity's end lay in union with God and in achieving Heaven, as this was the ultimate destiny of human souls
Four Tiers of Law
Eternal law is God's righteousness and wisdom used to create and govern the universe, it is truth
Divine law is revelation of the Law through Scripture and the Church which guides humanity to righteousness
Natural law is God's Law discoverable through right human reason, which is part of our human nature
Human law is society's laws, which should be based on divine and natural law
Aquinas described it as 'ius' (principle of law) rather than 'lex' (specific regulations in law)
Synderesis
Aquinas believed that reason led us to understand that humans are naturally inclined towards good and have a natural aversion to evil
This is because 'every substance seeks the preservation of its own being'
Precepts
Aquinas believed we could decide what is good using reason and considering telos
There were 5 key primary precepts which he identified: preservation of life; ordered society; worshipping God; education of children; and reproduction
Secondary precepts are primary precepts put into practice which may differ based on the circumstances
Real and Apparent Goods
Real goods are those in accordance with the primary precepts and God's wishes for humanity
Apparent goods are those that tempt us as they seem enjoyable but do not lead to human flourishing
Aquinas believed we could use reason to distinguish between real and apparent goods
By choosing real goods, we develop our virtues (cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude and justice, and biblical virtues of faith, hope and love)
Doctrine of Double Effect
An act with a good and bad outcome is still permitted so long as the act is not intrinsically wrong, the good effect does not come from the bad effect, the bad effect is not desired though foreseen and the unintended bad effect must be proportional to the desired good effect
Killing in self-defence is therefore justified as the intention was defence and so long as 'he repel force with moderation' to ensure the effects are proportionate
Origins
It is a deontological ethical theory which claims actions are intrinsically right or wrong
It originated in the thinking of Aristotle and Cicero and was later developed by Aquinas
The general idea is that doing good allows humans to achieve our telos/end/purpose
Telos
It gives us something to aim towards, gives a clear indication of how good we are based on if we achieve it
Fits well with the 'plans and purpose that God has for human beings' (Jeremiah 29:13)
But this assumes that we live in a purposive universe
Our purpose does not seem fixed but seem to change based on influences - existentialists would say there is no purpose other than the one that we choose for ourselves
If our purpose if discoverable through reason, why do different societies have different moral rules?
Four Tiers of Law
There does seem to be a hierarchy of moral law where stealing is justified if it is to feed a starving family
There is some consistency between natural and divine law, and God's Law seems in the interest of humanity
We seem to have an inherent morality with our natural aversion to horrific actions
Hierarchy of law allowed for Nazis to be prosecuted for 'crimes against humanity' at Nuremburg
Scripture is contradictory and too open to interpretation for making laws
Our reason can lead us to different conclusions depending on circumstances
Relativists may argue that there is no fixed moral law as society's laws evolve. Difficult to see how different cultures' laws are all part of God's moral law
Precepts
Nobody wishes to be evil so we all have a natural inclination towards the good
Primary precepts seem to contribute towards successful human society, may fit well with evolutionary theory
Secondary precepts give flexibility in how primary precepts are applied situationally
Not everyone acts to the same good and having everyone act to their own good is too relativist for Natural Law
Primary precepts differ between societies, can sometimes conflict and can't be followed all the time so who and when?
Secondary precepts are often up for debate so are not entirely clear (e.g. the contraception debate)
Real and Apparent Goods
We recognise that sometimes what we want is not the best thing for us so makes clear what is meant by 'the good'
Use of reason to distinguish is universal to all humans and it distinguishes us from the desire-based animal kingdom
Real goods develop virtues explaining the link between someone's actions and their character
Distinguishing 'real' goods allows room for prejudicial moral superiority, and sometimes following what is 'best for us' can make us miserable - hardly human flourishing
Goods are not universal in all cultures and we make decisions on emotion and desire as well as reason
Who are we to determine what others should do to fit our definition of being ethical? Virtues are not universally accepted and change over time
Doctrine of Double Effect
Gives flexibility to moral decision-making, allowing for a more sophisticated approach that resolves dilemmas where moral responsibilities clash
Emphasis on intention absolves people of guilt and judges people on what they can control (as opposed to consequences)
Does this undermine the deontological approach? Does it perhaps offer a slippery slope as it is unable to offer a clear answer to complex scenarios
But we cannot know another person's intentions, so how can we determine what was intended or not? Perhaps not practical for society?
John Finnis
He based his theory on 'basic forms of human flourishing,' needs, rather than telos - life, knowledge, play, work, aesthetic experience, friendship, practical reasonableness and spirituality
Each of these aspects have their own rights but they must go together - someone deprived of leisure would not flourish but neither would someone deprived of work
These areas of flourishing are supported by a pursuit of goods, following one's conscience and 'respect for every basic value in every act' (as needed for the common good)
We can therefore derive the objective moral law from these goods and requirements and see justice as the necessary promotion of the common good (such absolute duties and rights include not being tortured, not being killed as a means to an end)
Proportionalism
There are moral rules that should not be broken unless there is a proportionate reason for doing so
Bernard Hoose called evils like pain 'pre-moral' as it is an evil in itself, but when applied to a situation it could be morally right
Philip Keane wrote, 'When a truly proportionate reason is present in an action so the action is morally good, the human will is clearly not intending the pre-moral evil in the action, even if the pre-moral evil must be done as a means to the pre-moral good'
Unlike situation ethics, proportionalists maintain there are pre-moral goods and evils, but recognise that the situation must be taken into account to see if it is also a moral evil
Whether NL is a helpful method of moral decision-making
The primary precepts act as a guide for our aims, with secondary precepts allowing adaptability to the situation
Whether a judgement about what is good, bad, right or wrong can be based on telos
It gives us a clear idea of what the good is and helps us to distinguish between real and apparent goods to decide what is good and right
Whether the universe is designed with telos or human nature is oriented towards the good
There is evidence of design in the universe which seems tailored for purpose, the universe needs direction from something (qua regularity and qua purpose)
Whether the doctrine of double effect can be used to justify an action
The doctrine of double effect resolves complex situations where moral responsibilities conflict
The inclusion of divine law as a source of the moral law means Scripture can give guidance to the individual, useful to the religious
The reliance on the assumption that we have an inbuilt morality is too optimistic, we cannot simply rely on reason for making moral decisions
Some primary precepts may be challenged and secondary precepts can spark debate so not exactly clear
The doctrine of double effect is not clear on what is proportionate and is not practical for justice as we cannot know others' intentions
Reliance on Christian doctrine excludes most of the world and does not apply to secular society, Pinker suggests the humanitarian principle can replace this
Something good would be following our purpose as it would be to follow the 'plans and purpose that God has for human beings' (Jeremiah 29:13)
Telos assumes design which is not a certainty for secular society. We may have no fixed purpose other than the one we choose for ourselves (which can change) but this not a good purpose, e.g. Nazis
Assuming we did have a God-given purpose, what is to say that it is good or right? This is to assume that God is a loving god, and the problem of evil would suggest otherwise
We also want to do good and feel guilty/badly about bad actions, doing good is rational as it is what is best for us (fits with evolutionary theory?)
We impose an artificial order on the universe that may not exist, it may just be random. The premise that anything natural is designed is an assumption only
There is so much evidence of evil human action, and so much disagreement that there surely cannot be an objective good
Sometimes complex moral situations arise where a perfectly good outcome is not possible, but so long as the good is proportionate to the bad it is justified
A person's good intentions can be seen to justify the action as they were acting in good faith and in the way they thought to be best at the time
It is not clear enough in complex situations and may allow for unnecessary bad outcomes for the sake of a good cause
When judging whether an action is justified, we must have evidence to prove it is so, but how can we when we cannot know others' intentions?