Natural Law

Question 1

Natural law - Aristotle

Answer 1

Aristotle believed that everything in the world had a purpose.
Things are ‘good’ or flourish when they achieve their purpose or final cause.
To get to the final cause, there are efficient causes, which are thing that help towards the ultimate purpose
For humans, our ultimate purpose is happiness or eudaimonia. This is not emotional happiness but refers to flourishing or fulfilling our potential.

Question 2

Natural law - Aquinas

Answer 2

God created the world according to a particular order and this is why we can work out certain laws governing the world.

Question 3

4 types of law

Answer 3

Eternal laws - the laws God has created for the world
Natural law - using reasoning to understand eternal laws
Divine law - God reveals his laws through holy books and prophets
Human law - using natural and divine law to work out more detailed rules about how to live

Question 4

Primary Precepts - Aquinas’ Natural Law

Answer 4

Worship God
Live in ordered societies
Reproduce
Learn and seek knowledge
Defend the innocent

Question 5

Secondary precepts

Answer 5

Using the primary precepts to make more specific rules about actions

Question 6

Proportionalism

Answer 6

A proportionate response is sensible at times. For example, ‘do not kill’ is a secondary precept based on the primary precept ‘defend innocent life.’ However, in times of war it may be necessary to kill in order to defend innocent life.

Question 7

Real vs apparent goods - Natural Law

Answer 7

A real good is one that is connected to our purpose and aims towards the primary precepts.
An apparent good is one that does not follow the primary precepts.

Question 8

Interior vs exterior acts - Natural Law

Answer 8

Interior acts - our intentions
Exterior acts - what we actually do

Question 9

Principle of double effect

Answer 9

acceptable to do an action which breaks the precepts, if it is an unintended side effect of a good action which maintains the primary precepts.

Question 10

Cardinal virtues

Answer 10

Prudence
Temperance
Justice
Fortitude

Question 11

Theological virtues

Answer 11

Faith
Hope
Charity

Question 12

Finnis’ 7 basic goods

Answer 12

Life
Knowledge
Friendship
Play
Aesthetic experience
Practical reasonableness
Religion

Question 13

Explaining the basic goods

Answer 13

Universal
Self-evident
We presuppose them in everything we think or do

Question 14

Practical reason

Answer 14

In practical reason there can be two contradictory acts that are both morally correct choices
Humans can use free will to decide which choice is right for them.
This will be influenced by their circumstances and culture which can affect how they prioritise the basic goods.

Question 15

9 requirements of practical reasoning

Answer 15

View your life as a whole
Prioritise certain goods
Apply equally to all people
Not get obsessed
Actively improve yourself
Efficient
Never commit an act that directly harms a basic good
Foster the common good
Act according to your conscience

Question 16

Finnis’ natural law - immigration

Answer 16

Positives -
Basic goods:
Friendship and sociability
Aesthetic experience
Religion

Requirements of practical reason:
Basic goods apply equally to all
Aim to do the most good and avoid evil by fulfilling basic goods
Foster the common good of the community
Act according to your conscience and practical reason

Negatives -

Basic goods:
Friendship and sociability
Aesthetic experience

Requirements of practical reason:
You should foster the common good of the community

Question 17

Finnis’ natural law - capital punishment

Answer 17

Positives -
Basic goods:
Friendship and sociability
Practical reasonableness

Requirements of practical reason:
Basic goods apply equally to all people
You should foster the common good of the community
Opposition to capital punishment

Negatives -
Basic goods:
Life
Practical reasonableness

Requirements of practical reason:
You should never commit an act that directly harms a basic good, even if it will indirectly benefit another basic good.
You should act according to your conscience

Question 18

Hoose’s proportionalism

Answer 18

in certain circumstances, bad actions might be right if there is a proportionate reason to perform them.

‘There are certain moral rules and it can never be right to go against these unless there is a proportionate reason which would justify it.’ (Hoose)
Therefore, the rules can be broken in certain circumstances, but: ‘this situation must be sufficiently unusual and of sufficient magnitude to provide a reason which would overturn what would otherwise be a firm rule.’

Question 19

Ontic evil

Answer 19

Lack of perfection caused by the fall

Question 20

Pre-moral evil

Answer 20

Pain
Death
Mutilation
Surgery will cause pain and sometimes mutilation (pre-moral evils) but is justified by the intention to save life and the value the patient will get out of it, which makes it the right thing to do, even if the act is not technically good.

Question 21

Hallett - value and disvalue

Answer 21

Value consists of all the positive reasons why an action might be carried out, including support for deontological principles, loving intention, positive consequences.
Disvalue consists of all the negative aspects of this decision such as breaking natural laws, wrong intentions, negative consequences

Question 22

Capital punishment - proportionalism

Answer 22

Consider the value and disvalue in particular situations to decide whether capital punishment would be the lesser of two evils.
Deontological rule is to preserve life, a serial killer may have broken this deontological rule – an evil act.
Capital punishment would restore order to society and protect other innocent people therefore have value
However, capital punishment would not preserve life.
Therefore, proportionalists would not justify capital punishment in this case.

Question 23

Immigration - proportionalism

Answer 23

Ontic evil exists and so moral situations are not always clear and potentially bad actions can be justified if they create the lesser of two evils.
If the immigrant is a danger innocent life would be defended and order in society upheld. The intention is loving as it protects young people from radicalisation and prevents possible violent acts. The disvalue is not following the traditional teaching of support for those from poorer countries as a way to defend the innocent.
In this situation – which is sufficiently unusual and of sufficient magnitude, refusing to allow them to migrate to this country permanently would be the lesser of two evils.