Natural Law Flashcards

Question

Criticism of Natural Law Ethics (Outdated): Contextual Criticism of Aquinas

Answer 1

Aquinas’ Natural Law is criticized for being based on medieval socio-economic conditions. For example, rules like restricting sexual behavior to marriage or requiring large families were necessary for societal stability in a chaotic time, but modern society no longer faces these conditions. As society has evolved, these rigid moral principles are no longer as relevant or needed.

Answer 2

Conservative Catholics argue that natural law is not outdated because it remains essential for social stability and flourishing. They claim that abandoning traditional moral principles, like those in natural law, has led to a decline in societal well-being (e.g., fewer successful marriages, rising mental illness). Natural law is seen as a vital source of morality, meaning, and purpose, which modern secular society lacks.

Answer 3

Critics argue that Aquinas' theory was shaped by his socio-economic context, and its principles may have been based more on what was good for people in his time, rather than divine revelation. Natural law is criticised for being inflexible, making it increasingly outdated as society progresses and changes.

Answer 4

Kai Neilson and Bernice Hamilton argue that Natural Law fails to account for moral diversity across cultures. The primary precepts (e.g., procreation) may not hold the same importance or be applicable in all societies. The idea of a universal human nature and shared moral principles is questioned, as different societies have different values, rules, and virtues.

Answer 5

Aquinas believed that moral law could be understood through both divine revelation and human reason. He argued that rationality transcends cultural and societal differences, allowing common ethical ideas to be shared across cultures.

Answer 6

The double effect helps reconcile seemingly conflicting biblical teachings by emphasising the importance of intention alongside following moral laws. For example, Jesus’ teachings focus on the right moral intention and virtue, not just rule-following (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). The double effect clarifies Christian ethics by showing that while following moral law is crucial, a good intention in a situation where a bad side effect occurs can justify permitting the bad side effect.

Answer 7

Some theologians reject the double effect, arguing that God's commandments are absolute and not dependent on intention. For these theologians, the distinction between intended effects and merely foreseen side effects has no morally relevant significance. If a bad effect is foreseen, it does not justify the action, regardless of intention. An example is if a person drives their car while a drunk person crosses their path and gets hit. Even if unintentional, it would still be morally wrong.

Answer 8

Critics argue that the Bible’s commandments are rigid, while Natural Law is more flexible. Natural law allows for the intention behind an action to play a role in justifying outcomes, such as actions that indirectly lead to harm but have a good primary intention (e.g., self-defence). Natural Law’s general precepts are more adaptable and can help navigate situations where intention is crucial, aligning with the telos of glorifying God.

Answer 9

The criticism highlights a potential flaw in Natural Law: it attempts to add flexibility to the Bible’s rigid moral commands, such as "Thou shalt not kill." The double effect might justify actions like self-defence, passive euthanasia, or even abortion, which could conflict with Biblical teachings. For some Christians, the Bible’s authority should take precedence over Natural Law, as the two might clash in these complex moral scenarios.

Answer 10

The double effect allows flexibility in modern Catholic ethics, permitting actions like passive euthanasia, abortion to save the mother, and contraception to prevent AIDS, depending on the situation.

Answer 11

Proportionalism modifies Natural Law by suggesting that it is acceptable to break the primary precepts if there is a proportionate reason (i.e., if the action results in more good than bad). Proportionalists argue that the nature of the act and means-end conditions are not valid; what matters is the overall proportionality of the good vs. bad consequences. For example, in the case of killing a baby to save the family, proportionalism would argue that the good of saving the family outweighs the bad of killing the baby. Proportionalism emphasizes flexibility, stating no action is intrinsically evil, as long as it produces more good than harm.

Answer 12

Greater flexibility to justify actions like euthanasia, abortion, or genetic engineering depending on the situation and proportionate reasoning. Proportionalism rejects the rigid notion that breaking the primary precepts is always morally wrong.

Answer 13

Critics, such as John Paul II, argue that proportionalism misinterprets the purpose of moral actions. Natural law ethics, according to Aquinas, requires us to follow the primary precepts, not focus on balancing good and bad consequences. Proportionalism distracts from the ultimate end of following moral law as designed by God, making it a misguided approach to ethics.

Answer 14

John Paul II defends traditional Natural Law, arguing that moral actions are good when they align with human nature’s true purpose (telos). The focus should be on following the primary precepts, not calculating ontic goods vs. evils. Proportionalism misdirects us from this goal and undermines the importance of following God’s designed moral order.

Answer 15

Critics suggest that calculating the ontic goods and evils of an action could be part of the telos. Even Aquinas accepted that the primary precepts were not final and could be adapted. The development of proportionalism highlights that Natural Law should be open to growth and adaptation in response to evolving ethical challenges.

Answer 16

Proportionalism is seen as more pragmatic and suited to moral decision-making in a fallen world. In a postlapsarian (fallen) world, moral decisions often involve actions with both good and bad consequences. Proportionalism allows for flexibility in evaluating these actions, focusing on achieving more good than bad, which aligns with the concept of human flourishing (our telos). The concept of ontic goods and evils (things that enable or disable flourishing) is central to proportionalism, and it is argued that following proportionalism can help direct us towards our telos, even in a world destabilised by the Fall.

Answer 17

John Paul II (JP2) critiques proportionalism for allowing actions that are intrinsically evil, as long as they result in a greater good. He argues that no good consequence can justify an intrinsically evil act, which inherently disrupts human flourishing. Even if an act produces a better balance of ontic goods and evils, it can never truly lead us toward our telos if it violates natural law. JP2 emphasises that early Christians, willing to martyr themselves, demonstrated the importance of following God's law regardless of the consequences.

Answer 18

Defenders argue that JP2's example of martyrdom may be overly idealistic and does not address real-life moral dilemmas like euthanasia. In these cases, breaking natural law might seem necessary to prevent further suffering.

Answer 19

Critics argue that proportionalism misunderstands the true purpose of morality, which is not to seek happiness but to follow God's moral law. Suffering, even in a fallen world, does not invalidate God's law. Following the natural law, even if it leads to suffering or death (like martyrdom), is seen as virtuous and is part of human flourishing, according to philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas. Cardinal Newman exemplifies this by stating that even extreme suffering is preferable to violating God's law, highlighting the importance of moral integrity over consequential outcomes.

Answer 20

Updates Aquinas' natural law to fit modern society, addressing its outdated aspects. Secular Approach: Does not rely on God, making it relevant for a society with fewer religious people. Seven Basic Goods (replaces Aquinas' five primary precepts): Life, Knowledge, Play, Aesthetic Appreciation, Friendship/Sociability, Practical Reasonableness, Religion. These goods are self-evident in human nature, not divinely ordained. Rejects Aristotle’s Telos: Believes there is no predetermined goal, only the one we give ourselves. Common Good: The idea that communities should enable individuals to pursue these basic goods. Laws and Authority: Essential for ensuring that everyone can pursue the basic goods harmoniously. Example: Laws against murder support the basic good of life.

Answer 21

More applicable to contemporary society than Aquinas’ theology-based version. Emphasizes individual reasoning and human flourishing over fixed theological views.

Answer 22

Too much reliance on fallible human reasoning. Lacks clear guidance on moral actions. Can lead to intolerant conclusions, e.g., on sexual orientation and immigration. Overall: Finnis’ version of natural law is considered more effective than Aquinas' for modern society due to its focus on individual reasoning and common good without needing reliance on God.

Answer 23

Balanced View of Human Nature: Aquinas' ethics offers a realistic view, acknowledging both human goodness (reason & telos) and badness (original sin). Human reason remains intact after original sin, allowing us to discover and act on God's moral law (telos). Aquinas argues that only rational beings can sin, and humans still retain the ability to reason despite original sin. He diverges from Augustine by suggesting that concupiscence (human passions) can sometimes be natural when governed by reason. Engagement with Autonomy: Natural law provides a Christian ethical framework that includes human autonomy—our ability to reason and choose based on natural law.

Answer 24

Overreliance on Human Reason: Barth, influenced by Augustine, argues that original sin has corrupted human reason, making it unreliable for understanding God or God's morality. Barth asserts that our finite minds cannot grasp God's infinite nature, and relying on reason to know divine morality is idolatrous (believing earthly things are divine). This corruption can lead to dangerous ideologies, like the worship of nations (e.g., Nazism), showing the arrogance of relying on human reason. Faith Over Reason: Barth claims that only faith in God’s revelation through the Bible is valid, rejecting human reason as a means of knowing God or moral law.

Answer 25

Aquinas argues that original sin only diminishes our inclination towards the good and doesn't destroy our ability to reason. With God’s grace, human reason can still discover knowledge of God’s existence and natural moral law. Aquinas' view remains balanced, recognising both good and bad in human nature and the role of reason in making moral choices.