natural law Flashcards
who are the 3 main scholars in natural law and when did they come about?
aristotle - 384-322 BCE
augustine - 354-430 CE
tomas aquinas - 1225-1274 CE
why is aquinas often reffered to as ‘dumb ox’ by his peers
becuase his theories were abstract, incoherent and difficult to apply to realtiy so he wasnt considered an esteemed theologian.
which branch of christianity heavily influenced aquinas’s teachings
roman catholic - they were very strict on religion.
criticisms to aquinas’s theory
vaugness - the theory often contradicts itslef and does not give clear answers to complex situations.
unclear conclusions - precepts often overlap in duty
in reality there is no clear evidence of a common good
reason is corrupt - supported by christian theoligian reinhold neibhur - the fall corrupted human justice and free will - discerning good from evil is flawed as we are driven by selfish intentions.
intrisnic good is not universal - can be seen in pol pot with the khmer rouge murdering 2 million cambodians. - syndersis is undermined.
cirecos SOW to explain the roots of natural law
“true law is right reason in agreement with nature”
aquinas’ way of describing natural law
“natural law is the sharing in the eternal law by intellegent creatures”
what did aquinas believe about human nature?
what can this be supported by?
that we are inherently good
syndersis rule: ‘to do good and avoid evil’
the rule is a strength to the theory becuase is givers an optomistic outlook that people can reach their telos.
two philosphers and theories that contradict NLT
humes ‘is ought gap’
moores naturallistic fallacy
meaning of telos
everything on earth has a purpose or goal. by fulfilling out telos, we can reach eudimonia. humans can do this by following the rules of natural law. every humans telos is the desire to be with god and we reach holistic happiness in union with god.
which philosopher promoted ethical naturalism?
F.H. Bradley
in the late 19th century - humans have a natural urge to realsie their ideal selves which is the ultimate goal of ethics.
argument that precepts offer clear moral guidelines
aquinas’s abseloutist stance to the precepts - that all should foolow them - makes is more simple and accesable to all. he then makes the point that secondary precepts are open to interpertation and should be derived from the abseloute principles.
what did mackie argue and how does this effect the theory
mackie argues cultural relativism - which is when there can be no objective truth of right or wrong as all cultures and societies have different values to uphold. however, NLT does not fall into this trap as aquinas offers flexability through the DOTDE and the secondary precepts (allowing to deal with complex situations). the primary precepts offer fixed moral codes which are relitively easy to follow.
aquinas’s abseloutism as a weakness + analysis & evaluation
this can be overcome by thinking of natural law as a situationist theory - meaning humans are forced to act rationally in order to apply the precepts correctly.
what did john finnis argue about objective morality?
finnis takes the aristotelian veiw when is come to moral truths - he argues that objective knowledge of morality is possible, allowing humans to avoid injustice and focus on justice, which he argues is a concrete claim to promote common good.
what does kai nielson argue about objective morality?
“from the point of veiw of science, there is no such thing as an essential human nature which makes a man”.
nielson uses anthropological examples such as eskimos killing their elderly that wont survive the winter months - which is starkly different to the moral standards in the UK towards the elderly. this undermines the primary precepts as there are no objective truths that there is no common good/universally accepted rules.
