2F Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism: application of the theory

Question 1

What are the two instances that the spec requires you to apply Finnis’ Natural Law and Hoose’s Proportionalism to?

Answer 1

• Immigration

* Capital punishment

Question 2

[Finnis] What is the issue with applying Finnis’ Natural Law to immigration and capital punishment?

Answer 2

• Some b.g.s and req.s support and some oppose (some even do both)
• Mixed messages ∵ does not give specific ethical guidance

Question 3

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support immigration.

Answer 3

• Life: Might be saving ppl from dying e.g. Syria
• Knowledge: Could bring knowledge of other countries/cultures
• Friendship: Should extend the hand of friendship to all
• Aesthetic exp.: Wider variety of cultural aesthetic influences e.g. poetry
• Religion: Different avenues to answer the ultimate questions

Question 4

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support immigration.

Answer 4

• Life: The strain on the NHS might endanger others
• Friendship: This b.g. seems to limit sociability to our friends, not ppl we do not know
• Aesthetic exp.: Could erode a cultural identity through forms such as art and poetry
• Religion: Could being extremists from other religions

Question 5

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support immigration.

Answer 5

• Life as a whole: Long-term benefit to society - contribute to the workforce
• Equality: B.g.s apply equally ∴ should not neglect immigrants
• Effort to improve: Being kind by allowing imm. allows you to flourish
• Common good: The world = a community; must help others to flourish

Question 6

[Finnis, Immigration] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support immigration.

Answer 6

• Don’t harm b.g.s: If we allow imm., we are harming every b.g. that doesn’t support it
• Common good: Possible breakdown in local services due to influx

Question 7

[Finnis, Immigration] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis’ Natural Law to immigration.

Answer 7

• Finnis believes it is our moral (and legal) obligation to follow the law ∵ it creates the best conditions to achieve the common good
- If laws of society reject imm. (e.g Trump administration), we should follow this
• Finnis argued that controlled imm. = good ∵ benefits to community outweigh problems (helps ppl within the community to pursue b.g.s)
- But, mass imm. would have the opp. effect ∵ of disruption and breakdown of services
• Even the originator of the ethic cannot provide a clear answer

Question 8

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that support capital punishment.

Answer 8

• Life: So that they cannot murder anyone else (if the criminal was a murderer) and prevent them from pursuing the b.g.s
• Friendship: If a killer threatened my friend

Question 9

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the basic goods that do not support capital punishment.

Answer 9

• Life: Life = imp. - c.p. takes that human right away
• Friendship: My friend might be a killer
• Practical reasonableness: Statistics show that c.p. does not act as a deterrent ∴ reason suggests that it is wrong
• Religion: Most r.s teach that it is wrong to kill

Question 10

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that support capital punishment.

Answer 10

• Not obsessive: Serial killers = obsessed w/ killing

* Common good: Individuals cannot flourish if they are dead

Question 11

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] List, and elaborate upon, the requirements of practical reason that do not support capital punishment.

Answer 11

• Life as a whole: The criminal may be sorry in the long-run
• Prioritise: Prioritise ‘life’
• Equality: All ppl have the right to life
• Not obsessive: Should not feel the obsessive need for revenge (Jimmy Mizen’s parents do not feel that need)
• Be good: Goes against b.g. of ‘life’
• Don’t harm: Breaking b.g. of ‘life’

Question 12

[Finnis, Capital Punishment] Give a conclusion to the application of Finnis’ Natural Law to capital punishment.

Answer 12

• If a law supports it, accept the law
- But, diff. outcome in UK & USA
- What about corrupt regimes? Anti-Semitism = legal in Nazi G.)
• In 2016, imprisoned criminals cost £1.8 billion (£17,000-61,000 per prisoner
- Is this not against the common good?

Question 13

[Hoose] What is one way that proportionalists consider a situation?

Answer 13

• To split up all the reasons why breaking the deontological moral rule is theologically justified and why it is not (the value and the disvalue)
• Value = all reasons why an evil act can be justified
• Disvalue = opposite

Question 14

[Hoose, Immigration] What did Pope Francis say in 2017 about immigration?

Answer 14

• “every stranger who knocks at our door is an opportunity for an encounter with Jesus Christ, who identifies with the welcomed and rejected strangers of every age”

Question 15

[Hoose, Immigration] What is the default position of proportionalists regarding immigration?

Answer 15

• To accept imm. ∵ accept the theo., deo., mor. rule regarding imm. - i.e. to help
- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in thw world, there are occasions when rejecting imm. may be justified as a ‘right act’

Question 16

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

Answer 16

• C. theology believes helping imm.s = a good act

Question 17

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

Answer 17

• The intention of some imm.s may be to bring the war to the new country (breaking the prim. prec. of ‘ordered society’ in the case of Aquinas’ Natural Law)
• This would allow for the potential consequence of violent deaths (breaking 6th Comm. ‘Do not murder’)
• Leader of country may stop immigrants ∵ of agape for their own ppl, who are already poor and cannot support influx

Question 18

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

Answer 18

• C. theo. would say that not helping the imm.s is a bad act
• Intention of helping = to uphold NL precept of ‘pres. of life’
• Higher chance of reproducing, rather than dying of poverty, famine, disease
• Agape: most loving thing to do = support them

Question 19

[Hoose, Immigration] A country has to decide whether to accept potential immigrants from a war-torn country, but the receiving country is relatively poor. Give a conclusion.

Answer 19

• Disvalue outweighs value ∴ not a proportionate reason to break the theo., moral rule of helping imm.s ∴ not a ‘right’ act
∴ if the country did not help, it is a ‘bad act’

Question 20

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What did Pope Francis say in 2015 about capital punishment?

Answer 20

• “Today the death penalty is inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed.” (although this has not always been the view of the church)

Question 21

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] What is the default position for proportionalists regarding capital punishment?

Answer 21

• To follow Pope Francis’ teaching ∵ it is a theo. ‘bad act’
- However, due to the moral ambiguity that exists in the world, there are occasions when a pre-moral evil could be considered a right act

Question 22

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the Christian teaching on morality in this situation?

Answer 22

• C. theo. believes CP is a bad act

Question 23

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the value (reason for allowing an evil act) in this situation?

Answer 23

• Intention of CP is to stop the prisoner committing more murders, upholding prim. prec. of life + 6th Comm. of ‘Do not murder’
• Consequence = some of the saved lives may reproduce ∴ supporting prim. prec. of reproduction

Question 24

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. What is the disvalue (reason for not allowing an evil act) in this situation?

Answer 24

• Breaking ‘life’ and 6th Comm. - maybe the executioner enjoys killing ppl ∴ satisfying his non-agape intention

Question 25

[Hoose, Capital Punishment] A woman murdered 30 people for no other reason that it gave her pleasure; in prison she killed 3 more, including 2 innocent prison guards. Give a conclusion.

Answer 25

• Value outweighs disvalue in this unique situation