Natural Law Flashcards
“Can judging something as right or wrong be based on whether it achieves its telos?”
A: Bad because it assumes a fixed purpose for all aspects of human life. Fails to take into account human complexity and diversity of human experiences. E.g. human sexual organs, natural law may say that the purpose is to procreate but can be used for other purposes such as pleasure
CA: However the fixed telos provides a clear and objective basis. Offering a stable foundation for ethical foundations - Aquinas believed there is an essential human nature
E: however it still fails to take account for subjectivity of human nature. Sartre argues there is no fixed human nature. Doesn’t address complex human nature. Leads to harmful real-life scenarios e.g. no contraception leading to HIV outbreak
A: Darwin Evolution seems to suggest that purpose is not a feature on the world but is something that human beings project in to the natural world. Appendix example
CA: we seem to have an orientation towards the good which seems to suggest we may have a natural orientation towards the good - synderesis by exercising our reason we can achieve our telos and human flourishing. e.g. UN
E: John Locke: we are born as a blank slate. We do not have a purpose may agree with Sartre
Can a judgement be right or wrong based on it’s success on achieving telos points
Yes:
- we have a fixed human nature: evidence from human rights. Universal recognition of morality. Every sane person may understand that there is obvious right and wrongs.
- divine command theory: we have telos ‘plans and purposes God has for human beings’
- our purpose is eudaimonia. Human nature tends to agree that happiness is the desired end for humans.
No
- dependant on the a priori view on the universe that we have a telos
- we don’t have a fixed human nature: cultural relativism
- Darwin & Dawkins evolution: evidence that human life has no other purpose other than survival.
- if God does not exist difficult to argue for human purpose
- Humans don’t always do good and avoid evil. World wars??
- Hobbes: humans are selfish and brutish. Our purpose is to conquer the animal is tic, brutish side to create fair and just societies
- Kai Neilson: it is a mistake to think that humans are similar.
“Does natural law provide a helpful method of moral decision making” essay
A: no as there is no fixed human nature - G.E Moore naturalistic fallacy. Good because we do it in the world not true. Kai Nielson no fixed human nature as we have changed so much over time. Tabula rasa - John Locke
CA: Tend to agree of the concepts of synderesis e.g. UN human rights. Set across the world
E: No consistent with the 21st century society - hurtful towards homosexuality
A: Aquinas issues with telos - all humans have the same purpose is a mistake. Priests being celebate opposes himself.
CA: Biblical evidence that we have a telos - divine command theory, revelation. The concept of telos ensures that moral decision making is not centred in the individual.
E: Is entire independent on the overarching view that the universe was created with a telos. Darwin - human nature is based on evolution
Aquinas’ natural law
- Aquinas believes there is a fixed human nature and we are made in the image of God. Aquinas ad Aristotle are essentialists. Aquinas took inspiration from Aristotle.
- Stare believes in existentialism - he believes that we could only have a purpose or telos if we were made by God. But he believes that we come into existence and then we must decide what our essence is (what we are for). We have a tendency to deny our freedom and behave as mere objects. He calls this living in bad faith. - A cafe waiter could choose different employment
4 tiers of law:
- Eternal law: refers to what is known in the mind of God. It is his knowledge of what is right and wrong
- Divine law: law revealed by God through he commandments
- Natural law: all humans were given the capacity the consider what is right and wrong. We were given this by God
- Human law: Laws devised by governments and by societies. Ideally should be based on natural laws
Primary precepts:
- 1. preservation of innocent life 2. To reproduce 3. Education 4. To live in an ordered society 5. To worship God
- Manualists have created fixed secondary precepts
Telos:
- the main moral rule is to do good and avoid evil - synderesis
- In exercising our reason we can achieve our telos
- Practical reasoning = phronesis
There is a fixed human nature:
- We are made in the image of God and have a clear purpose or telos. The aim to fulfil the primary precepts is built into our nature
- Sartres existentialism: human beings are fundamentally different. Sartre was an atheist but believed that humans could only have a purpose if they has been made by God. He believes that we must decide for ourselves
Doctrine of double effect:
- what matters is what effect is intended
- for example if you were attacked and you fought back to save your own life. If the attacker was killed in the process you are not guilty of doing anything
Do human beings have an orientation towards the good?
- the synderesis principle suggests that we are directed by something within us to pursue good and avoid evil
- He follows Socrates arguing that no one deliberately does a wrong action. This is just a reasoning error
- They would be pursing an apparent good rather than a real good
- If someone is having an affair despite being married Aquinas believes that the individual must have mistaken that the pleasure they will gain is good
Scholars & arguments for natural law
- the primary precepts are not particularly controversial.
- aligns with laws we have today to do with human rights. Found in morality of societies.
- Aquinas was right that we have an essential human nature towards the good
- Aristotle: would argue that humans have an inclination towards a certain goal. Would argue that it is a biological fact that humans can flourish. Therefore telos may be a valid concept
- a strength of natural law is that it is available to everyone as we are all born with the ability to know the precepts
- Conservative Catholics often argue that natural law is not outdated because it serves an important function without which society flourishes less.
- Clear and easy to apply
- Gives us rules that are independent of our own desires
Doctrine of double effect arguments:
- Doctrine of double effect allows some flexibility in an otherwise rigid moral decision making procedure
- The doctrine of double effect is a recognition of the complexity of real life situations. Allows sufficient consequential thinking into natural law.
- A strength of the double effect is that it helps to resolve seemingly disparate biblical themes. Jesus’ commands were not merely about following certain rules, but also about having the right moral intention and virtue
- Joseph Mangan: agrees with Aquinas’ view of proportionality. Killing in self defence is acceptable if there is a grave enough reason
Scholars & arguments against natural law
- Too legalistic and fixed on obeying the rules particularly when there are very obvious negative consequences.
- G.E. Moore argues commits the naturalistic fallacy of observing what happens in the world and assuming that this is what must happen.
- Aquinas made the mistake of assuming that all humans have the same purpose
- evolution suggests that purpose is not a feature in the world
Barth: N.L relies too much on -human reason - Too vague: whose life do we preserve? Issues arise in wartime. Would a baby be saved or the mother? Who do we prioritise
-
Protestants: too out of touch with the modern world.
Luther, a Protestant reformer, had with issues with the theory, including Aquinas’ use of reason. Human reason is sinful because of the Fall. He also felt that doing good & following Nat. Law wouldn’t save you, only God’s grace can save you.
The double effect
- difficult to know how far to press the idea of double effect - may result as a slippery slope
- the idea that the bas effect is permitted if it was unintended is difficult to judge. It may appear someone is acting in self defence but we will never know.
- Pope Nicholas: argues that “no man may lawfully take another life in self defence in order to save their own life”
Orientation towards the good:
- Augustine argues that we are fallen and affected by original sin. This affects out ability to make good decisions.
- Aquinas is overly optimistic
- Aquinas’ view of real and apparent good may be seen as naive
- Kai Nelson: argues that there is not a fixed human nature. e.g. it was once accepted that homosexuality was not natural
“Can the doctrine of double effect be used to justify an action” essay
A: Joseph Mangan: agrees with Aquinas’ view of proportionality, taking a life in self-defence if there is a grave enough reason
CA: Not Christian - Pope Nicholas I says that no man may lawfully take another’s life. This would be a mortal sin.
E: in the case of abortion for example the intention would be to save the mothers life but the secondary effect would be that the foetus is killed. Lesser of two evils
A: Recognises the complexity of real-life situations and acknowledges that in some situation there will have to be a choice of . For example Kant doesn’t have a solution for clashing duties. Doctrine of double does
CA: however cannot clearly know intention cannot genuinely judge. It may appear that someone s acting in self-defence .
E: the individual knows
