natural law Flashcards
Humes Ought-Is criticism
Hume argues that we cannot derive an ought from an is: statements about what we ought to do (natural law) cannot be justified by appealing to facts about the natural world. This is because facts are descriptive, whereas what we ought to do are evaluative. For example, stealing, while a breach of the primary precepts, can sometimes be justified, but the fact of stealing (descriptive) does not entail the value judgement (evaluative).
how can natural law defend itself against humes Ought-is criticism
Natural law may defend itself against this through the notion of ethical naturalism:
Ethical naturalism responds to Hume by saying that ethical statements can be reduced to non-ethical statements about the natural world and that the gap between is and ought can be bridged by appealing to natural facts about what is good for human beings. For example. A naturalist might argue that we ought to avoid causing harm to others because it is in our natural interests to “live in an ordered society” that promotes the well-being of all members.
WEAKNESS- Aquinas on human nature
Aquinas is too optimistic about human nature. If you consider the terrible acts of humanity e.g. genocide and slavery, it is evident that human nature is not as positive as Aquinas thought. If we really had an orientation towards the good and the primary precepts accurately described our nature’s orientation, then we should not expect to find the extent of human nature that we do.
DEFENCE- Aquinas on human nature
However, Aquinas’ claim is that human nature merely contains an orientation towards the good (synderesis), it doesn’t involve a commitment to humans actually doing more good than evil, nor to incredibly evil acts or cultures occurring infrequently. Aquinas acknowledges there are many reasons why we may fail to do good despite having an orientation towards it. These include gods preservation of free will, original sin, mistakes in concensia, lacking virtue and a corrupt culture
synderesis principle
the innate human capacity to understand and recognise basic principles of morality. “good should be done and evil should be avoided. Aquinas believed humans have an innate propensity towards good and evil is simply the ‘privation of good’
Strength- why is natural laws absolutism a strength?
It holds that moral principles are objective and universal and that they apply to all individuals and all circumstances. It is not dependent on individual preferences, cultural norms or historical contingencies rather is grounded in the very nature of human beings and the universe so is considered absolute and unchanging. This is a strength as it provides a clear and consistent moral framework that cannot be altered by the whims of individual preferences or cultural relativism. This can be useful in situations where there is a disagreement or conflict over moral issues. By providing an objective standard for morality, NL can solve this and provide individuals with a sense of moral certainty and clarity
WEAKNESS of natural laws absolutism
natural law’s absolutism makes it unable to account for the complexity of human situations and the need for flexibility in moral decision-making. This rigidity can make it difficult to apply natural law principles to real-world situations that or often nuanced and multi-faceted.
conflicting duties in natural law
natural law is a deontological ethic, so by virtue, inflexible and absolutist. this creates conflicting duties (similar to kant) whereby in real-world situations, moral principles clash and could be compromised in order to ensure the most moral outcome. For example, in a situation where a doctor is treating a terminally ill patient in a great deal of pain, the natural law principles of non-maleficence and the principle of beneficence clash and natural law does not provide clarity on which moral principle to follow
ROSS-conflicting duties in natural law
ross attempts to solve this through his ‘prima facie’ (first sight) duties. In the case of the doctor and terminally ill patient, the moral outcome is intuitively obvious.
the doctrine of double effect
Consider someone commiting a morally bad action in order to fulfil a morally good action, then the moral agent would have to adhere to the doctrine of double effect: we must turn to the intention behind the action. We must evaluate:
The action must be morally good or neutral
The bad effect must not be the means by which the good effect is achieved
The good effect must be proportionate to the bad effect
There must be a sufficiently grave reason to justify the bad effect
evaluation of the DDE
BUT, how can the theory be absolute? How can morality be absolute and objective if natural law can be violated when we deem it necessary?
These apply to situations in which the intended action is good and the unintended side effects are the things violating the natural laws. As moral agents, we are not intending to violate the natural laws, rather promote them
E.g in the case of the doctor and the terminally ill patient, if the doctor increases the patienrs morphine dose and kills them with the intention to end tbheir sufferiong, it is a morally right action. One the other hand, if the doctor does this with malice intent, it is morally impermissible.
INTERIOR vs INTERIOR ACTS
elizabeth anscombe on the DDE
Anscombe deemed the doctrine of double effect mere sophistry: a good doctor knows the dose of morphine that would kill a patient, whether he intended to remove pain or kill is irrelevant and it is still a morally wrong action. It falsely distinguishes between harms that are regretfully intended and harms that are foreseen as side effects. The advocators of the position need to provide reasons for making this distinction.
Is there any real difference between performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman to save her life, and performing abortion to save her life? The Principle of Double Effect permits the former but not the latter.
phillipa foot on the DDE
argued the doctrine is based on a flawed understanding of the nature of moral reasoning. Foot argued that the Doctrine of Double effect relies on a rigid distinction between means and ends, which is not always applicable to the complexities of real life situations. She also argued that the doctrine does not take into account the fact that our moral judgments are often based on the overall context of a situation, rather than on a simple calculation of means and ends!!!!
In addition, Foot argued that the doctrine of double effect can be used to justify actions that are morally questionable, such as intentionally harming innocent people in order to achieve some greater good. She argued that such actions are inherently problematic, even if they are intended to achieve some greater good.
weakness- cultural relativism (fletcher)
If all humans were really born with the ability to know the primary precepts, we should expect to find more moral agreement than we do. In fact, we find vastly different moral beliefs. Furthermore, the disagreement is not random but tends to fall along cultural lines. This suggests that it is actually social conditioning which causes our moral views, not a supposed natural law in human nature. This has been argued by psychologists like Freud. Fletcher argues this shows there is not an innate God-given ability of reason to discover a natural law. He concludes that ethics must be based on faith, not reason (Fletcher’s positivism).
explanations for cultural relativism and evil
human nature contains an orientation towards the good, it doesn’t involve a commitment to humans actually doing more good than evil, nor to incredibly evil acts or cultures occurring infrequently. Aquinas acknowledges that there are many reasons we might fail to do good despite having an orientation towards it. These include original sin, mistakes in conscientia, lacking virtue and a corrupt culture. So, the fact that there is a core set of moral views found cross-culturally shows his theory is correct.
Moral thinkers from different cultures came up with similar moral prescriptions such as the golden rule; to treat others as you would like to be treated, which can be found in ancient Chinese Philosophy, Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity. This could be taken to show that moral views are determined by a universal human moral nature.
