2C Natural Law: application of the theory Flashcards
What are the two instances that the spec requires you to apply Natural Law to?
- Abortion
* Voluntary euthanasia
What should you NOT do in the exam?
• Discuss the rights/wrongs of abortion and euthanasia without relating it to Natural Law
[Abortion] Give some views on when personhood begins.
- Conception
- Viability
- Quickening
- Consciousness
- Ensoulment
[Abortion] What is the problem with establishing a clear answer as to when human life begins?
• All arguments are based upon the meaning of words, or what the philosopher Peter Vardy calls ‘relational
factors’.
• That is, there are different interpretations or understandings of the same words.
• Until accurate definitions of key terms are agreed, the stage at which personhood status is awarded can
never be universal.
[Abortion] What is the key primary precept in the case of abortion? Why?
• Preserving innocent life
• ∴ abortion = inherently evil ∵ of the intentional + direct killing of an innocent human
- This leads to the secondary precept of ‘abortion is wrong’
[Abortion] What is Howard Kainz’s view of applying natural law to abortion?
• He is a Catholic and believes that there are two other precepts that are more relevant to abortion than ‘preserving of innocent life’: ‘right to procreation’, and ‘nurture offspring’
• When defending the right of the mother if her life is in danger: “Those who apply the first precept often make an exception for situations threatening the life of the mother, since there is a conflict between the two rights to life.”
• ∴ if you use a principle of exception for the first precept, there must also be exceptions in applying precepts of ‘right to procreation’ + ‘nurture offspring’ in the case of rape ∵ the precept of ‘right to procreation’ implies she has a right to procreate voluntarily, but rape violates choice
- i.e. As the initial precept = violated, abortion = valid ∵ correcting the violation
- However, does not fit w/ NL ∵ the precepts do not supersede each other. Kainz has a strong moral case, but does not fit w/ NL. Moreover, rape abortions do not intend to not the life ∴ cannot apply doctrine of double effect
• “Christian principles may supersede considerations of conflicts of right related to Natural Law”
- if a woman decides to nurture a child after rape, it is an example of virtuous behaviour - “from the standpoint of NL, such decisions would belong in the category of heroic virtue”
• Indicates that NL has an obligation to reason, through the art of casuistry; but some would be reluctant to accept even agape can be stretched beyond what the primary precepts identify as its key application
[Abortion] Give some reasons why Natural Law does not allow abortion.
• Breaks prim. prec.s of procreation + orderly living
• Goes against the virtue of fortitude ∵ she may need courage to confront the fear of unwanted pregnancy
• If the Interior Act is good (helping the girl out of an unwanted situation) but the Exterior Act is wrong (breaking prim. prec.s), overall, abortion = morally wrong, despite its good intentions
• Applying NL in a casuistic way can occasionally lead to bad consequences e.g. preserving life of a pregnant cancer sufferer, but she loses her unborn child
- The good Exterior Act can deliberately be done to create bad consequences
[Abortion] What does Dr Dianne N. Irving state in ‘Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory’?
- “a pregnant woman who is faced with the grim reality of impending death may use [chemotherapy or hysterectomy] and other morally licit medical treatments and procedures for the reasonably grave reason of saving her life, as long as the death of her unborn child is not directly intended as the end […] but is only allowed […] as an accidental by-product of these medical actions.”
- “However, the directly intended death of an unborn child by means of procured abortion remains morally indefensible […] even in the case of incest or rape.”
- “There is much at stake to the lives of so many millions of innocents [… to leave it] up to mere personal whimsy or political bartering.” (similar to Gregory Paul’s statistical problem of evil)
- “The proper understanding and application of the principle of double effect offers a commonly accepted, morally legitimate, objectively grounded basis for clarifying the important moral distinctions.”
[Euthanasia] What is the key primary precept in the case of voluntary euthanasia? Why?
• Preserving innocent life
• NL teaches that there is something special about a human that is above that of animals ∴ should be protected ∴ the taking of life = morally unacceptable
- Expressed as ‘the sanctity of life’ - ‘sanctity’ = the quality of being sacred or holy
[Euthanasia] How does the Catechism of the Catholic Church describe people’s actions towards voluntary euthanasia? What does this suggest?
• “an attempt to justify the act as a means of eliminating suffering”
• It is ∴ an approach that suggests casuistry + consideration of virtues
- But, there are dangers as to what constitutes a virtuous mercy killing as it is only an apparent good
[Euthanasia] What does Ian Hariss note about voluntary euthanasia in Spain? What does this allow to be argued?
• “In Spain, an intervention with the direct intention of either accelerating death or killing the patient is morally wrong, but the heavy use of sedation […] is generally perceived as the best way out.”
• ∴ could be argued under NL that giving a large dose of morphine to control the pain does not have the intention of killing; even if it does, there is the doctrine of double effect
- However, “NL theory is inherently hostile to utilitarian arguments […] there is a ‘slippery slope’ that must be avoided at all costs. In its concession to the doctrine of double effect […] NL theory is comprised by a latent concession to utilitarianism.”
- ∴ is the application of double effect a true absolutist application of NL?
[Euthanasia] Aside from ‘preserving innocent life’, what other primary precept would be challenged by legalising voluntary euthanasia?
• ‘ordered society’
[Euthanasia] How is the sanctity of life in a Christian sense reductionist?
• ∵ reduces life to purely biological terms. ‘Life’ could mean enjoying living ∴ eut. = accepted
- ‘preserving innocent life’ in its happiest state
- But, can you then just kill someone when they’re at their happiest? How do you conclude when life has lost value?
[Euthanasia] Give some other comments about Natural Law and voluntary euthanasia.
• Does free will supersede NL? - NL and C.ch teachings ≠ directly in B • Only G can decide when life ends i) We do not know his plan ii) The person may have miraculously recovered
[Euthanasia] What is the uncomfortable inconsistency regarding voluntary euthanasia?
- Consciously refusing treatment, knowing that the consequence is death, = acceptable
- Consciously willing medication, of which the consequence is death (only sooner, with less pain) = unacceptable
