Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ETHICS: FINNIS' NATURAL LAW - AO2 - Coggle Diagram
ETHICS: FINNIS' NATURAL LAW - AO2
IMMIGRATION (1)
everyone has the right to participate in the basic goods, without exception, so fleeing a country for one’s life is part of the good of life
one good shouldn’t be prioritised over another - practical reasonableness as important as the good of life
migration isn’t wrong if it’s for economic reasons so they can participate in the goods when they couldn’t previously, and hinder others from participating in the goods either
two requirements of practical reason are having a life plan to participate in the goods, and being detached to prevent obsession over a project
If these are able to be met once immigration is done and goods can be done, then this is positive
obsessively pursuing immigration while risking life and risking certainty of being able to do the goods isn’t
an exception for this, however, can be if staying in one place puts more risk to one’s life, and thus can pursue immigration in such a way
IMMIGRATION (2)
uncontrolled immigration (unrestricted movement) can risk the common good, as the long-term effect would be eradication of national identity at the expense of freedom + community
e.g. US and Australia, the wealthy white have forced their ways on the indigenous at expense of their cultural identity
uncontrolled immigration will lead to a ‘reverse colonisation’, where Western culture is eradicated/ suppressed by traditions of others
the common good could then be damaged if it was impossible for people to participate in all benefits of current society
controlled immigration requires applications of asylum claims, so if the common good is unaffected/ enhanced, so that person shouldn’t be prevented from pursuing their life plan
however, many would say with the rates of immigration, there are too many people’s life plans to consider - legitimate authority should then enforce rules where no one’s life plan is restricted
Some countries have point systems to determine how much value an immigrant can bring to the community; more points -> application is more likely to succeed
this is beneficial for the common good, this ends up prioritising the skilled over those who haven’t had the same opportunities
IMMIGRATION (3)
some countries consider human rights of the immigrants; refusing an application could interfere with right to family life, or right to practice religion
not being able to live near loved ones could interfere with participation in the seven basic goods
some countries have rules preventing religious practice, education, and playing - threats to the goods, so immigration would thus allow such practices instead
however, only allowing immigration for humanitarian reasons and restricting immigration to economic immigrants restricts freedom for choosing individual life plans
there is restriction to pursuing the common good if only certain people are allowed to enter communities
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
A requirement of practical reason is to practice common good, which needs coordination by authority, liberty to pursue life plans, and managing conflict
if a member of society does not follow laws that allow coordination, there needs to be a system to restore common good
catholic church + natural law see that only a lawful, God-given authority can give the death penalty when welfare faces serious threat
If one endangers the common good they can be killed due to the damage they can do if they are allowed to live, which finnis disagrees wi as this doesn't stop an innocent being killed to save the state
E. C. BRUGGER
- common good cannot be reason enough to take a life away as members of society are all their own people who contribute individually, so there should be a response proportionate to their crime
e.g. murder: this could be challenging as killing a murderer would challenge the basic good of life and prevent the murderer pursuing their life plan
but, common good would see removing an apathetic criminal from society to further prevent crime
golden rule says there should be no arbitrary preferences: treat others like you want to be treated; a person shouldn’t be killed by capital punishment for benefit of society (rejection of utilitarianism: greatest good for greatest #)
law + authority ensure laws are clear to follow, so a criminal should be in full knowledge of what they’ve done and what happens as a result, so they shouldn’t be allowed to continue to pursue their life plans without taking responsibility
law has to uphold common good, so leaving the criminal unpunished is unacceptable
finnis doesn’t deny death can act as retribution for some grave crimes to allow order in society to be restored
he denies capital punishment can be used to restore justice without intention to kill; it cannot be defended as a response to threat, so he sees it unacceptable
finnis points out that Church teachings can be correct but have needed to be clarified in the past (e.g. with abolition of slavery)
aquinas would argue criminals lack human dignity which justifies killing them for the benefit of humanity
STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
STRENGTHS
‘perverted faculty argument’
- if a faculty is natural and exists for a purpose, then it would be wrong to go against this
FESER
use this argument to go against acts that usually prevent reproduction, saying they frustrate the natural purpose of genitals, which finnis calls ‘ridiculous’
he says this reasoning limits many things to having and being used for only one function, and that sexual activity (for example) can be for play between a couple
innis’ Natural Law doesn’t depend on teachings of the beatific version or doctrine understanding of Christianity - the goods can be understood in a broad context
this allows meaning and purpose of human existence, and importance of life and existence of free will
non-catholic moral agents aren’t excluded, and assumptions of life after death isn’t used
WEAKNESSES
finnis says the basic human goods are self-evident and objective, and to avoid
HUME'S GUILLOTINE
argues goods cannot be derived from facts about the world
MACKIE
says this produces a belief in something strange, and is known as his
‘argument from queerness’
BUCKLE
- finnis’ natural law contradicts itself on the subject of reproduction, essentially part of the good of life, and says finnis’ natural law allows ppl to choose their moral actions but in accordance with Catholic teaching
anything that doesn’t promote reproduction (masturbation, artificial contraception) is against the good of life, even though this denies human expression and individuality
natural law is based on human nature being rational and reason being able to lead to truth, but humans aren’t perfect, so sometimes we make emotional decisions, or some made under pressure etc.
reasoning could be said to have come from evolution, rather than being the purpose of humans, and helps us adapt to our environment and survive
this isn't the same as being a reliable method to find the truth or be something that leads from life to death